Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 177703 January 28, 2008
VIM! G. !RRIO! an" !NTHON# RON!D G. !RRIO!, petitioners,
vs.
JOHN N!$OR C. !RRIO!, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
!USTRI!%M!RTINE&, J.'
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the November !, "!!# $ecision
1
and %pril !, "!!& Resolution
2
of the Court of
%ppeals in C%'(.R. )P No. *5&!.
+he relevant facts are culled from the records.
,ohn Nabor C. %rriola -respondent. filed )pecial Civil %ction No. !'!!/! with the Regional
+rial Court, Branch "54, 0as Pi1as Cit2 -R+C. against 3ilma (. %rriola and %nthon2 Ronald
(. %rriola -petitioners. for 4udicial partition of the properties of decedent 5idel %rriola -the
decedent 5idel.. Respondent is the son of decedent 5idel with his first wife 3ictoria C.
Calabia, while petitioner %nthon2 is the son of decedent 5idel with his second wife,
petitioner 3ilma.
6n 5ebruar2 /#, "!!4, the R+C rendered a $ecision, the dispositive portion of which
reads7
89:R:56R:, premises considered, 4udgment is hereb2 rendered7
/. 6rdering the partition of the parcel of land covered b2 +ransfer Certificate of +itle No.
;&/4 -;4/*/. left b2 the decedent 5idel ). %rriola b2 and among his heirs ,ohn Nabor C.
%rriola, 3ilma (. %rriola and %nthon2 Ronald (. %rriola in e<ual shares of one'third -/=.
each without pre4udice to the rights of creditors or mortgagees thereon, if an2>
". %ttorne2?s fees in the amount of +:N +96@)%N$ -P/!,!!!.!!. P:)6) is hereb2
awarded to be reimbursed b2 the defendants to the plaintiff>
. Costs against the defendants.
)6 6R$:R:$.
3
+he decision became final on March /5, "!!4.
4
%s the parties failed to agree on how to partition among them the land covered b2 +C+ No.
;&/4 -sub4ect land., respondent sought its sale through public auction, and petitioners
acceded to it.
5
%ccordingl2, the R+C ordered the public auction of the sub4ect land.
6
+he
public auction sale was scheduled on Ma2 /, "!! but it had to be reset when petitioners
refused to include in the auction the house -sub4ect house. standing on the sub4ect land.
7
+his prompted respondent to file with the R+C an @rgent Manifestation and Motion for
Contempt of Court,
8
pra2ing that petitioners be declared in contempt.
+he R+C denied the motion in an 6rder
9
dated %ugust !, "!!5, for the reason that
petitioners were 4ustified in refusing to have the sub4ect house included in the auction, thus7
+he defendants ApetitionersB are correct in holding that the house or improvement erected
on the propert2 should not be included in the auction sale.
% cursor2 reading of the aforementioned $ecision and of the evidence adduced during the
eC'parte hearing clearl2 show that nothing was mentioned about the house eCisting on the
land sub4ect matter of the case. Dn fact, even plaintiff?s Arespondent?sB initiator2 Complaint
liEewise did not mention an2thing about the house. @ndoubtedl2 therefore, the Court did
not include the house in its ad4udication of the sub4ect land because it was plaintiff himself
who failed to allege the same. Dt is a well'settled rule that the court can not give a relief to
that which is not alleged and pra2ed for in the complaint.
+o hold, as plaintiff argued, that the house is considered accessor2 to the land on which it is
built is in effect to add to plaintiff?s AaB right which has never been considered or passed
upon during the trial on the merits.
Dn the absence of an2 other declaration, obvious or otherwise, onl2 the land should be
partitioned in accordance toAsicB the aforementioned $ecision as the house can not be said
to have been necessaril2 ad4udicated therein. +hus, plaintiff can not be declared as a co'
owner of the same house without evidence thereof and due hearing thereon.
+he $ecision of the Court having attained its finalit2, as correctl2 pointed out, 4udgment
must stand even at the risE that it might be erroneous.
89:R:56R:, the Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Contempt of Court filed b2 plaintiff
is hereb2 $:ND:$ for lacE of merit.
)6 6R$:R:$.
10
+he R+C, in its 6rder dated ,anuar2 , "!!#, denied respondent?s Motion for
Reconsideration.
11
Respondent filed with the C% a Petition for Certiorari
12
where he sought to have the R+C
6rders set aside, and pra2ed that he be allowed to proceed with the auction of the sub4ect
land including the sub4ect house.
Dn its November !, "!!# $ecision, the C% granted the Petition for Certiorari, to wit7
89:R:56R:, the petition is (R%N+:$. +he assailed orders dated %ugust !, "!!5 and
,anuar2 , "!!# issued b2 the R+C, in Civil Case No. )C% !'!!/!, are R:3:R):$ and
):+ %)D$:, and the sheriff is ordered to proceed with the public auction sale of the
subject lot covered by TCT No. 383714 includin! the house constructed thereon.
)6 6R$:R:$.
13
-:mphasis supplied..
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the C% denied the same in its Resolution
14
of %pril !, "!!&.
9ence, the present petition on the sole ground that the C% erred in holding that the R+C
committed grave abuse of discretion in den2ing the motion for contempt of court.
+he assailed C% $ecision and Resolution must be modified for reasons other than those
advanced b2 petitioners.
+he contempt proceeding initiated b2 respondent was one for indirect contempt. )ection 4,
Rule &/ of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure for the institution of proceedings for
indirect contempt, viz7
)ec. 4. How proceedings commenced. F Proceedings for indirect contempt ma2 be initiated
motu proprio b2 the court against which the contempt was committed b2 an order or an2
other formal charge re<uiring the respondent to show cause wh2 he should not be
punished for contempt.
"n all other cases char!es for indirect conte#pt shall be co##enced by a verified
petition with supportin! particulars and certified true copies of docu#ents or papers
involved therein and upon full co#pliance with the re$uire#ents for filin! initiatory
pleadin!s for civil actions in the court concerned. Df the contempt charges arose out of
or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege
that fact but said petition shall be docEeted, heard and decided separatel2, unless the court
in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for
4oint hearing and decision. -:mphases supplied..
@nder the aforecited second paragraph of the Rules, the re<uirements for initiating an
indirect contempt proceeding are a. that it be initiated b2 wa2 of a verified petition and b.
that it should full2 compl2 with the re<uirements for filing initiator2 pleadings for civil actions.
Dn Regalado v. Go,
15
we held7
%s eCplained b2 ,ustice 5lorenG Regalado, the filin! of a verified petition that has
co#plied with the re$uire#ents for the filin! of initiatory pleadin! is #andatory C C
C7
+his new provision clarifies with a regularit2 norm the proper procedure for commencing
contempt proceedings. 8hile such proceeding has been classified as special civil action
under the former Rules, the heterogenous practice tolerated b2 the courts, has been for
an2 part2 to file a motion without pa2ing an2 docEet or lawful fees therefore and without
compl2ing with the re<uirements for initiator2 pleadings, which is now re<uired in the
second paragraph of this amended section.
C C C C
9enceforth, eCcept for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu propio b2 order of or a
formal charge b2 the offended court, all charges shall be commenced b2 a verified petition
with full compliance with the re<uirements therefore and shall be disposed in accordance
with the second paragraph of this section.
C C C C
%ven if the conte#pt proceedin!s ste##ed fro# the #ain case over which the court
already ac$uired jurisdiction the rules direct that the petition for conte#pt be
treated independently of the principal action. Conse$uently the necessary
prere$uisites for the filin! of initiatory pleadin!s such as the filin! of a verified
petition attach#ent of a certification on non&foru# shoppin! and the pay#ent of
the necessary doc'et fees #ust be faithfully observed.
C C C C
+he provisions of the Rules are worded in ver2 clear and categorical language. Dn case
where the indirect contempt charge is not initiated b2 the courts, the filing of a verified
petition which fulfills the re<uirements on initiator2 pleadings is a prere<uisite. Be2ond
<uestion now is the mandator2 re<uirement of a verified petition in initiating an indirect
contempt proceeding. +rul2, prior to the amendment of the /**& Rules of Civil Procedure,
mere motion without compl2ing with the re<uirements for initiator2 pleadings was tolerated
b2 the courts. %t the onset of the /**& Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, however, such
practice can no longer be countenanced.
16
-:mphasis ours..
+he R+C erred in taEing 4urisdiction over the indirect contempt proceeding initiated b2
respondent. +he latter did not compl2 with an2 of the mandator2 re<uirements of )ection 4,
Rule &/. 9e filed a mere @rgent Manifestation and Motion for Contempt of Court, and not a
verified petition. 9e liEewise did not conform with the re<uirements for the filing of initiator2
pleadings such as the submission of a certification against forum shopping and the
pa2ment of docEet fees. +hus, his unverified motion should have been dismissed outright
b2 the R+C.
Dt is noted though that, while at first the R+C overlooEed the infirmities in respondent?s
unverified motion for contempt, in the end, it dismissed the motion, albeit on substantive
grounds. +he trouble is that, in the C% decision assailed herein, the appellate court
committed the same oversight b2 delving into the merits of respondent?s unverified motion
and granting the relief sought therein. +hus, strictl2 speaEing, the proper disposition of the
present petition ought to be the reversal of the C% decision and the dismissal of
respondent?s unverified motion for contempt filed in the R+C for being in contravention of
)ection 4, Rule &/.
9owever, such simplistic disposition will not put an end to the dispute between the parties.
% seed of litigation has alread2 been sown that will liEel2 sprout into another case between
them at a later time. 8e refer to the <uestion of whether the sub4ect house should be
included in the public auction of the sub4ect land. @ntil this <uestion is finall2 resolved, there
will be no end to litigation between the parties. 8e must therefore deal with it s<uarel2, here
and now.
+he R+C and the C% differed in their views on whether the public auction should include
the sub4ect house. +he R+C eCcluded the sub4ect house because respondent never alleged
its eCistence in his complaint for partition or established his co'ownership thereof.
17
6n the
other hand, citing %rticles 44!,
18
445
19
and 44#
20
of the Civil Code, the C% held that as the
deceased owned the sub4ect land, he also owned the sub4ect house which is a mere
accessor2 to the land. Both properties form part of the estate of the deceased and are held
in co'ownership b2 his heirs, the parties herein. 9ence, the C% concludes that an2 decision
in the action for partition of said estate should cover not 4ust the sub4ect land but also the
sub4ect house.
21
+he C% further pointed out that petitioners themselves implicitl2
recogniGed the inclusion of the sub4ect house in the partition of the sub4ect land when the2
proposed in their letter of %ugust 5, "!!4, the following swapping'arrangement7
)ir7
+hanE 2ou ver2 much for accommodating us even if we are onl2 poor and simple people.
8e are ver2 much pleased with the decision of Presiding ,udge Manuel B. 5ernandeG, ,r.,
R+C Br. "54, 0as Pi1as, on the sharing of one'third -/=. each of a land covered b2
+ransfer Certificate of +itle No. ;&/4 -;4/*/. in 0as Pi1as Cit2.
9owever, to preserve the sanctit2 of our house which is our residence for more than twent2
-"!. 2ears, we wish to re<uest that the /= share of ,ohn Nabor C. %rriola be paid b2 the
defendants depending on the choice of the plaintiff between item -/. or item -"., detailed as
follows7
-/. )wap with a 5!!'s<uare meters AsicB lot located at Baras RiGal C C C.
-". Cash of P"!5,&!!.!! C C C.
C C C C.
22
8e agree that the sub4ect house is covered b2 the 4udgment of partition for reasons
postulated b2 the C%. 8e <ualif2, however, that this ruling does not necessaril2
countenance the immediate and actual partition of the sub4ect house b2 wa2 of public
auction in view of the suspensive proscription imposed under %rticle /5* of +he 5amil2
Code which will be discussed forthwith.
Dt is true that the eCistence of the sub4ect house was not specificall2 alleged in the
complaint for partition. )uch omission notwithstanding, the sub4ect house is deemed part of
the 4udgment of partition for two compelling reasons.
5irst, as correctl2 held b2 the C%, under the provisions of the Civil Code, the sub4ect house
is deemed part of the sub4ect land. +he Court <uotes with approval the ruling of the C%, to
wit7
+he R+C, in the assailed 6rder dated %ugust !, "!!5 ratiocinated that since the house
constructed on the sub4ect lot was not alleged in the complaint and its ownership was not
passed upon during the trial on the merits, the court cannot include the house in its
ad4udication of the sub4ect lot. +he court further stated that it cannot give a relief toAsicB
which is not alleged and pra2ed for in the complaint.
8e are not persuaded.
+o follow the foregoing reasoning of the R+C will in effect render meaningless the pertinent
rule on accession. Dn general, the ri!ht to accession is auto#atic (ipso jure), r()u*r*n+
no ,r*or a-. on ./( ,ar. o0 ./( o1n(r or ./( ,r*n-*,a2. So ./a. (3(n *0 ./(
*4,ro3(4(n.5 *n-2u"*n+ ./( /ou5( 1(r( no. a22(+(" *n ./( -o4,2a*n. 0or ,ar.*.*on,
./(y ar( "((4(" *n-2u"(" *n ./( 2o. on 1/*-/ ./(y 5.an", 0o22o1*n+ ./( ,r*n-*,2( o0
a--(55*on. Con5()u(n.2y, ./( 2o. 5u67(-. o0 7u"*-*a2 ,ar.*.*on *n ./*5 -a5( *n-2u"(5 ./(
/ou5( 1/*-/ *5 ,(r4an(n.2y a..a-/(" ./(r(.o, o./(r1*5(, *. 1ou2" 6( a65ur" .o "*3*"(
./( ,r*n-*,a2, *.(., ./( 2o., 1*./ou. "*3*"*n+ ./( /ou5( 1/*-/ *5 ,(r4an(n.2y a..a-/("
./(r(.o.
23
-:mphasis supplied.
)econd, respondent has repeatedl2 claimed that the sub4ect house was built b2 the
deceased.
24
Petitioners never controverted such claim. +here is then no dispute that the
sub4ect house is part of the estate of the deceased> as such, it is owned in common b2 the
latter?s heirs, the parties herein,
25
an2 one of whom, under %rticle 4*4
26
of the Civil Code,
ma2, at an2 time, demand the partition of the sub4ect house.
27
+herefore, respondent?s
recourse to the partition of the sub4ect house cannot be hindered, least of all b2 the mere
technical omission of said common propert2 from the complaint for partition.
That said notwithstandin! we #ust e#phasi*e that while we treat the subject house
as part of the co&ownership of the parties we stop short of authori*in! its actual
partition by public auction at this ti#e. Dt bears emphasis that an action for partition
involves two phases7 first, the declaration of the eCistence of a state of co'ownership> and
second, the actual termination of that state of co'ownership through the segregation of the
common propert2.
28
8hat is settled thus far is onl2 the fact that the sub4ect house is under
the co'ownership of the parties, and therefore susceptible of partition among them.
8hether the sub4ect house should be sold at public auction as ordered b2 the R+C is an
entirel2 different matter, depending on the eCact nature of the sub4ect house.
Respondent claims that the sub4ect house was built b2 decedent 5idel on his eCclusive
propert2.
29
Petitioners add that said house has been their residence for "! 2ears.
30
+aEen
together, these averments on record establish that the sub4ect house is a famil2 home
within the contemplation of the provisions of +he 5amil2 Code, particularl27
%rticle /5". +he famil2 home, constituted 4ointl2 b2 the husband and the wife or b2 an
unmarried head of a famil2, is the dwelling house where the2 and their famil2 reside, and
the land on which it is situated.
%rticle /5. +he famil2 home is dee#ed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is
occupied as a famil2 residence. 5rom the time of its constitution and so long as an2 of its
beneficiaries actuall2 resides therein, the famil2 home continues to be such and is eCempt
from eCecution, forced sale or attachment eCcept as hereinafter provided and to the eCtent
of the value allowed b2 law. -:mphasis supplied..
6ne significant innovation introduced b2 +he 5amil2 Code is the automatic constitution of
the famil2 home from the time of its occupation as a famil2 residence, without need
an2more for the 4udicial or eCtra4udicial processes provided under the defunct %rticles ""4
to "5/ of the Civil Code and Rule /!# of the Rules of Court. 5urthermore, %rticles /5" and
/5 specificall2 eCtend the scope of the famil2 home not 4ust to the dwelling structure in
which the famil2 resides but also to the lot on which it stands. +hus, appl2ing these
concepts, the sub4ect house as well as the specific portion of the sub4ect land on which it
stands are deemed constituted as a famil2 home b2 the deceased and petitioner 3ilma
from the moment the2 began occup2ing the same as a famil2 residence "! 2ears bacE.
31
Dt being settled that the sub4ect house -and the sub4ect lot on which it stands. is the famil2
home of the deceased and his heirs, the same is shielded from immediate partition under
%rticle /5* of +he 5amil2 Code, viz7
%rticle /5*. +he famil2 home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of
the unmarried head of the famil2 for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a
minor beneficiar2, and the heirs cannot partition the sa#e unless the court finds
co#pellin! reasons therefor. This rule shall apply re!ardless of whoever owns the
property or constituted the fa#ily ho#e. -:mphasis supplied..
+he purpose of %rticle /5* is to avert the disintegration of the famil2 unit following the death
of its head. +o this end, it preserves the famil2 home as the ph2sical s2mbol of famil2 love,
securit2 and unit2 b2 imposing the following restrictions on its partition7 first, that the heirs
cannot eCtra'4udiciall2 partition it for a period of /! 2ears from the death of one or both
spouses or of the unmarried head of the famil2, or for a longer period, if there is still a minor
beneficiar2 residing therein> and second, that the heirs cannot 4udiciall2 partition it during
the aforesaid periods unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. No compelling
reason has been alleged b2 the parties> nor has the R+C found an2 compelling reason to
order the partition of the famil2 home, either b2 ph2sical segregation or assignment to an2
of the heirs or through auction sale as suggested b2 the parties.
More importantl2, %rticle /5* imposes the proscription against the immediate partition of the
famil2 home regardless of its ownership. +his signifies that even if the famil2 home has
passed b2 succession to the co'ownership of the heirs, or has been willed to an2 one of
them, this fact alone cannot transform the famil2 home into an ordinar2 propert2, much less
dispel the protection cast upon it b2 the law. +he rights of the individual co'owner or owner
of the famil2 home cannot sub4ugate the rights granted under %rticle /5* to the
beneficiaries of the famil2 home.
)et against the foregoing rules, the famil2 home '' consisting of the sub4ect house and lot
on which it stands '' cannot be partitioned at this time, even if it has passed to the co'
ownership of his heirs, the parties herein. $ecedent 5idel died on March /!, "!!.
32
+hus,
for /! 2ears from said date or until March /!, "!/, or for a longer period, if there is still a
minor beneficiar2 residing therein, the famil2 home he constituted cannot be partitioned,
much less when no compelling reason eCists for the court to otherwise set aside the
restriction and order the partition of the propert2.
+he Court ruled in Honrado v. Court of Appeals
33
that a claim for eCception from eCecution
or forced sale under %rticle /5 should be set up and proved to the )heriff before the sale
of the propert2 at public auction. 9erein petitioners timel2 ob4ected to the inclusion of the
sub4ect house although for a different reason.
+o recapitulate, the evidence of record sustain the C% ruling that the sub4ect house is part
of the 4udgment of co'ownership and partition. +he same evidence also establishes that the
sub4ect house and the portion of the sub4ect land on which it is standing have been
constituted as the famil2 home of decedent 5idel and his heirs. Conse<uentl2, its actual and
immediate partition cannot be sanctioned until the lapse of a period of /! 2ears from the
death of 5idel %rriola, or until March /!, "!/.
Dt bears emphasis, however, that in the meantime, there is no obstacle to the immediate
public auction of the portion of the sub4ect land covered b2 +C+ No. ;&/4, which falls
outside the specific area of the famil2 home.
8HERE9ORE, the petition is P!RT# GR!NTED and the November !, "!!# $ecision
and %pril !, "!!& Resolution of the Court of %ppeals are MODI9IED in that the house
standing on the land covered b2 +ransfer Certificate of +itle No. ;&/4 is DEC!RED part
of the co'ownership of the parties ,ohn Nabor C. %rriola, 3ilma (. %rriola and %nthon2
Ronald (. %rriola but E:EMPTED from partition b2 public auction within the period
provided for in %rticle /5* of the 5amil2 Code.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
M!. !ICI! !USTRI!%M!RTINE&
%ssociate ,ustice
8: C6NC@R7
CONSUEO #N!RES%S!NTI!GO
%ssociate ,ustice
Chairperson
*
REN!TO C. CORON!
%ssociate ,ustice
!NTONIO EDU!RDO $. N!CHUR!
%ssociate ,ustice
RU$EN T. RE#ES
%ssociate ,ustice
! T T E S T ! T I O N
D attest that the conclusions in the above $ecision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtHs $ivision.
CONSUEO #N!RES%S!NTI!GO
%ssociate ,ustice
Chairperson, +hird $ivision
C E R T I 9 I C ! T I O N
Pursuant to )ection /, %rticle 3DDD of the Constitution and the $ivision ChairpersonHs
%ttestation, D certif2 that the conclusions in the above $ecision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtHs
$ivision.
RE#N!TO S. PUNO
Chief ,ustice
9oo.no.(5
*
Dn lieu of ,ustice Minita 3. Chico'NaGario, per )pecial 6rder No. 4;4 dated ,anuar2 //,
"!!;.
1
Penned b2 %ssociate ,ustice 9aEim ). %bdulwahid with the concurrence of %ssociate
,ustices %ndres B. Re2es, ,r. and Mariflor P. PunGalan Castillo> rollo, p. *#.
2
Dd. at //5.
3
Rollo, p. ";.
4
C% $ecision, id. at *;.
5
)ee R+C 6rder dated %ugust !, "!!5, id. at .
6
Dd.
7
Dd.
8
Rollo, p. "!.
9
)urpa note 5.
10
Rollo, pp. 4'5.
11
Dd. at 4*.
12
Rollo, p. 5/.
13
Dd. at /!5.
14
Dd. at //5.
15
(.R. No. /#&*;;, 5ebruar2 #, "!!&, 5/4 )CR% #/#.
16
Dd. at #"'#4, ##> see also Land Ban of t!e "!ilippines v. Listana, #r., 455 Phil. &5!,
&5;'&5* -"!!..
17
)upra note 5.
18
%rticle 44!. +he ownership of propert2 gives the right b2 accession to ever2thing which is
produced thereb2, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturall2 or artificiall2.
19
%rticle 445. 8hatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the
improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, sub4ect to the
provisions of the following articles.
20
%rticle 44#. %ll worEs, sowing and planting are presumed made b2 the owner and at his
eCpense, unless the contrar2 is proved.
21
C% $ecision, rollo, p. /!!.
22
Rollo, pp. /!"'/!.
23
C% $ecision, rollo, p. /!4.
24
Motion for Reconsideration, id. at #> Petition for Certiorari, id. at 5/.
25
(enerosa v. Pangan'3alera, (.R. No. /##5"/, %ugust /, "!!#, 5!! )CR% #"!, #";.
26
%rticle 4*4. No co'owner shall be obliged to remain in the co'ownership. :ach co'owner
ma2 demand at an2 time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is
concerned.
27
Bravo'(uerrero v. Bravo, (.R. No. /5"#5;, ,ul2 "*, "!!5, 4#5 )CR% "44, "##> $e Guia
v. Court of Appeals, 45* Phil. 44&, 4#4 -"!!..
28
Maglucot%aw v. Maglucot, ;5 Phil. &"!, &! -"!!!..
29
)upra note "4.
30
Petition, rollo, p. #.
31
)pouses 3ersola v. Court of %ppeals, (.R. No. /#4&4!, ,ul2 /, "!!#, 4*& )CR% ;5,
*".
32
R+C $ecision, rollo, p. "#.
33
(.R. No. /##, November "5, "!!5, 4&# )CR% ";!.