G.R. No. L-8769; November 21, 1957
DOMINGA MICIANO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EMILIANO WATIWAT, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Dominga Miciano, the legal wife of Jorge Watiwat, initiated an action to recover possession of a parcel of land and a residential house in Pinamalayan, Mindoro, valued at P1,400, and sought annual payment of P2,000 representing the value of the land’s fruits from the filing of the action until possession is delivered. The defendants prayed for the case’s dismissal. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts and presented additional evidence. The trial court dismissed the case but without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to institute a separate action to enforce payment of her share in usufruct from the time she took possession. The claim for damages was denied for insufficient evidence. The case was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals as only questions of law were involved.
Jorge Watiwat died intestate on May 10, 1932, leaving his widow Dominga Miciano and his brother and two sisters (Emiliano, Veronica, and Faustina Watiwat) as heirs. On September 8, 1937, the three collateral relatives filed an action (Civil Case No. 716) for the liquidation and distribution of the conjugal properties of Jorge Watiwat and Dominga Miciano, with only the widow as defendant. On May 17, 1941, the court rendered a decision declaring certain properties as conjugal and others as belonging exclusively to the widow, and required the parties to submit a project of partition within 30 days; otherwise, the court would appoint commissioners. Due to the war, no further action was taken until December 23, 1946, when the court appointed commissioners upon the plaintiffs’ motion. The commissioners submitted their report on February 8, 1949, which was approved by the court on August 27, 1949, adjudicating one-half of the land to the plaintiffs and the other half to the defendant widow, and the residential house to the widow on condition she pay the plaintiffs P700. A writ of execution was issued on December 6, 1949, and the properties were placed in the plaintiffs’ possession. Dominga Miciano commenced the present action on April 16, 1951, to recover possession, contending the proceedings in Civil Case No. 716 were null and void.

ISSUE

Whether the order of the trial court dated August 27, 1949, approving the report of the commissioners for partition, and the writ of execution issued on December 6, 1949, in Civil Case No. 716 are null and void because the decision rendered on May 17, 1941, had become final for over five years and could no longer be executed except by a revival action under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, holding that the proceedings in Civil Case No. 716 were legal and valid. The Court ruled that the judgment rendered on May 17, 1941, in Civil Case No. 716 had not acquired finality to make it executory because, according to the decision itself, the parties were given 30 days to submit a project of partition, or the court would appoint commissioners to effect the partition. These matters prevented the running of the five-year period for enforcement under Section 6, Rule 39. The Court cited precedents establishing that a judgment is not final if it leaves matters to be settled in a subsequent proceeding, such as an accounting, liquidation, or partition. The judgment only became final when the court approved the commissioners’ report on August 27, 1949. Therefore, the execution was within the allowable period, and the proceedings were valid. Costs were awarded against the appellant.