B. Bernardita Duenas
1. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec. No.
6907 (Exh. B), containing an area of 2.3956 has.
2. On a portion of land covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 1.0256 has.
3. On a portion of a residential lot, now identified
as Lot No. 916-GSS-09-01-000002 (See Exh. V),
containing an area of 0033 has.
—————
Total share 3.4245 has.
C. Maxima Duenas
1. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 6907 (Exh. B) containing an area of 3.4215 has.
2. On a portion of a residential lot, now identified
as Lot No. 916-GSS-09-01-000002
(See Exh. V), containing an area of 0033 has.
—————
Total share 3.4248 has.
D. Petra Duenas
1. On the undivided one-half (1/2) of the lot
covered by Tax Dec. No. 6901 (Exh. I),
containing an area of 1.0000 has.
2. A portion of the land covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 2.4212 has.
3. A portion of a residential lot, now identified as
Lot No. 916-GSS-09-01-000002, (See Exh. V),
containing an area of 0033 has.
—————
Total share 3.4245 has.
The other half of the land covered by Tax Dec. No. 6901 (Exh. I) is adjudged to be owned by Petra Duenas in her own right, having purchased this one-half portion from her father, Amado Duenas, in virtue of Exhibit L.
E. Julia Duenas
1. On a portion of the land covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522) containing an area of 1.2350 has.
2. On the land covered by Tax Dec. No. 6911
(Exhibit O), containing an area of 2.1862 has.
3. On a portion of a residential land, now identified
as Lot No. 916-GSS-09-01-000002,
(See Exhibit V), containing an area of 0033 has.
—————
Total share 3.4245 has.
F. Victoria Duenas
1. On a portion of a lot covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 2.2567 has.
2. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 920 (Exhibit Q) containing an area of 3317 has.
3. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2069 (Exhibit R) containing an area of 3750 has.
4. A portion of a residential lot, now identified as
Lot No. 916-GSS-0-01-000002 (See Exhibit VI),
containing an area of 0033 has.
—————
Total share 3.4245 has.
G. Laureano Duenas
1. On a portion of a lot covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 2.2567 has.
2. On a portion of a land covered by a Tax Dec.
No. 920 (Exh. Q), containing an area of 3317 has.
3. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2069 (Exh. R), containing an area of 4578 has.
4. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2012 (Exh. S), containing an area of 3750 has.
5. On a portion of a residential lot, now identified
as Lot No. 916-09-01-000002 (See Exh. V),
containing an area of 0034 has.
—————
Total share 3.4246 has.
H. Emerito Duenas
1. On a portion of the land covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 2465 has.
2. On a portion of the land covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 2.0101 has.
3. On a portion of the land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 920 (Exh. Q), containing an area of 3318 has.
4. On a portion of the land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2069 (Exh. R) containing an area of 4578 has.
5. On a portion of the land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2012 (Exh. S) containing an area of 3750 has.
6. On a portion of a residential lot, now identified
as Lot No. 916-GSS-09-01-000002,
(See Exh. V), containing an area of 0034 has.
—————
Total share 3.4246 has.
I. Aproniana Duenas
1. On a portion of the land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 6907 (Exh. B) containing an area of 7277 has.
2. On a portion of land covered by OCT No.
75-(0-1522), containing an area of 1.5289 has.
3. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 920 (Exh. Q) containing an area of 3317 has.
4. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2069 (Exh. R) containing an area of 4579 has.
5. On a portion of land covered by Tax Dec.
No. 2012 (Exh. S), containing an area of 3750 has.
6. On a portion of residential lot now identified
as Lot No. 916-GSS-09-01-000002
(See Exh. V), containing an area of 0034 has.
—————
Total share 3.4246 has.
"As the residential lot, now identified as Lot No. 916-09-01-000002, has only an area of 300 sq. m. and it is now a subject of an application for free patent (See Exh. V), filed by Maxima Duenas (also known as Maxima D. Bacus), the latter may buy off the rights of her other co-heir on the basis of its appraised value in the Inventory submitted by the Administrator of the estate, which was approved by the court.
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and except as above modified, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects, and insofar as consistent with the above modifications.
"Without pronouncement as to costs.
"SO ORDERED." 3 (Rollo, pp. 17-21).
After the rendition of the aforementioned judgment, administratrix Petra Duenas and her group filed with the court a quo on February 14, 1983 a Constancia with a Motion for Renovation of Judgment, attaching thereto copies of the proposed Renovation of Judgment. Parties failed to reach an agreement. Subsequently Emerito Duenas and his group filed a Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution on the ground that the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory. Petitioner Petra Duenas interposed no objection to said motion. Respondent Judge issued an order for the issuance of the Writ of Execution addressed to the Provincial Sheriff. Petra Duenas filed her Motion for Reconsideration and supplemental pleadings to contest the issuance of the Writ of Execution. Said motion for reconsideration was denied, hence the present petition for certiorari.
Petitioner contends that the issuance of the Writ of Execution, ordering the Provincial Sheriff to execute the decision rendered by the appellate court is contrary to law and the rules:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) That the intestate estate is still under the administration of petitioner, who has still to submit her Final Report of accounts in order to show that all taxes and obligations of the intestate estate have been paid pursuant to Section I, Rule 19, of the Rules of Court, specifically, the second paragraph thereof;
"(2) That the partition of the estate has still to be executed by the administratrix as one of her duties, prior to the closure of the intestacy, not by the Sheriff;
"(3) That while the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals divided the intestate estate, strictly as to the area of the same among the heirs thereof, the physical partition of the estate should first be executed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 69, of the Rules of Court, particularly taking into the consideration of last portion of Section 4, of the said Rule?
"(4) That the physical partition of the estate is prerequisite to the delivery of the same to the heirs thereof;
"(5) That finally, the approval of the Respondent Court is necessary for the closure of the estate; and
"(6) That being a Special Proceeding, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court on Execution, has no application to it." (Rollo, p. 7).
Petitioner’s contentions do not merit our consideration.
Undoubtedly, the project of partition of the intestate estate of the late spouses Adriano and Flaviana Duenas was issued by the court a quo in its decision in SP. No. R-6 (231) and affirmed by the appellate court with slight modification. As already said earlier, petitioner herein and company did not appeal the decision of the court a quo and as to them, said decision has long been final. The appellate court, upon the appeal made by private respondents herein, modified the decision of the court a quo in that the area of the parcel of coconut land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6901, now titled in the name of Petra Duenas, was reduced by one (1) hectare so that, the total area of the 8 parcels of land comprising the estate of the deceased spouses was also reduced from 31.8211 hectares to 30.8211 hectares. Its decision is now final, there being no appeal taken by private respondents from said decision.
The rules cited by petitioner, namely: Sec. 1, Rule 90 and Sec. 4, Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court, presupposes a situation where no partition is as yet made, necessitating a project of partition for the approval of the court, after the payment of the debts and other obligations of the estate and not to situations similar to the case at bar, where the project of partition is provided for by the courts in their judgments on the merits.
In view of the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court which are both final judgments of partition of the estate of the late spouses Adriano and Flaviana Duenas, public respondent Judge is empowered to order the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the final decisions of the above-named courts as provided for in Sec. 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court thus making it mandatory for the Sheriff or other officers to whom the writ is directed to execute that which was ordered in the decision of the court. Certainly, the administratrix is not the person referred to in said rule. While this rule refers to civil actions, it may likewise be applied to special proceedings (Sec. 2, Rule 72, Rules of Court).
Delivery of the respective shares of the parties set forth in the judgment of partition is a necessary and indispensable incident to carry into full effect the purpose of partition. It would be ridiculous and senseless to have a judgment of partition if the same could not be carried out. Considering that the court a quo in the case for partition, found among other things that the estate had no more debts to third persons that the estate and inheritance taxes were already paid and that the parties are the only surviving legitimate heirs of the deceased spouses Duenas, and considering further, that said court was authorized by the parties to exercise not only its limited jurisdiction but also its general jurisdiction as reflected in the parties’ Joint Motion to Set Case for Hearing on the Merits dated June 16, 1978, it becomes inevitable and mandatory to place each heir in possession of the respective parcel of land assigned to him. Hence the writ of execution is proper. To follow what the petitioner wants would only prolong her administration of the estate all to the prejudice of Emerito Duenas and the brother and sisters who sided with him. It is not contended that the intestate estate consists of 8 parcels of land with a total area of 30.8211 hectares. Three parcels of land, with a total area of 10.2169 hectares were and are still occupied and their fruits enjoyed by Petra Duenas and the three sisters who sided with her. They were never under administration either by Emerito Duenas or by the incumbent administratrix. It follows that these three parcels of land could not have been partitioned by the Sheriff for delivery to private respondents because the sheriff merely delivered to the private respondents the parcels of land assigned to them in the judgment of the appellate court. Only the titled real property with an area of 13.7598 hectares, is under administration, assigned by the appellate court to all the parties in this case except Maxima Duenas. The share of Petra Duenas and two of the sisters who sided with her is only 4.4724 hectares. The remaining area of the only titled real property, consisting of 9.2874 hectares, is assigned to private respondents, who appropriated the fruits of said parcels of land. Petra Duenas and company cannot be said to be prejudiced. On the other hand, the continued administration by petitioner Petra Duenas of the five parcels of land, namely those covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 920, 2069, 2012 and 6911, and the only titled property, would be most beneficial to her because the bulk of the properties is no longer hers nor the three sisters who had sided with her.
It is an error to say that the Court of Appeals took into consideration only the area of the parcels of land in rendering its decision disregarding the productivity and probable value of the parcels. The court a quo did not fail to consider these things in rendering its judgment which was eventually affirmed by the appellate court with slight modification.
Likewise, it is incorrect to say that Petra Duenas and company were reluctant to receive the unregistered land assigned to them because these might be contested by others if applied for. Petra Duenas was never assigned an unregistered land. Private respondents invited Our attention to the fact that the coconut land originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 6901 is now titled in her name under OCT No. P-2939 and a portion of the land covered by OCT No. 75-(0-1552) assigned to her by the appellate court’s judgment of partition. The other sisters who sided with Petra Duenas were given unregistered lands but the record reveals that these sisters had already filed their applications for free patents with the Bureau of Lands which applications have been given due course. If they are not yet titled in their names, the reason is not because written oppositions were filed by others.
By and large the trial court and the appellate court may have committed an error in the assignment or partition of the eight parcels of land to the parties in this case, but considering that their judgments are now final, the error, assuming that one was committed, can no longer be amended or corrected. We have consistently held that one of the purposes for which courts are organized is to put an end to controversy in the determination of the respective rights of the contending parties. With the full knowledge that courts are not infallible, the litigants submit their respective claims for judgment and they have a right at sometime or another to have final judgment on which they can rely as a final disposition of the issue or issues submitted, and to know that there is an end to the litigation. (Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 295). Likewise settled is the rule that after a judgment has become final, no additions can be made thereto, and nothing can be done therewith except its execution, otherwise there would be no end to legal processes (Fabular v. Court of Appeals, 119 SCRA 329).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the court of origin for the enforcement of the writ of execution.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Annex A for respondent Judge, pp. 87-90, Rollo, penned by Hon. Judge Jainal D. Rasul.
2. Petra, Maxima, Cleotilde, Bernardita all surnamed Duenas.
3. Penned by Hon. Justice Elias R. Asuncion, concurred in by Justice Porfirio V. Sison and Justice Jose A. R. Melo, promulgated September 21, 1981.