340 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Baezvs.Baez
*
G.R.No.132592.January23,2002.

AIDAP.BAEZ,petitioner,vs.GABRIELB.BAEZ,respondent.
*
G.R.No.133628.January23,2002.

AIDAP.BAEZ,petitioner,vs.GABRIELB.BAEZ,respondent.

Actions Appeals Execution Pending Appeal Execution pending

appeal is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency
outweighthedamagesthatmayresultfromtheissuanceofthewritMerely
putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify a plea for execution
pendingappeal,fortodosowouldmakeexecutionroutinary,therulerather
than the exception.As held in Echaus vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA
381, 386 (1991), execution pending appeal is allowed when superior
circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result
from the issuance of the writ. Otherwise, instead of being an instrument of
solicitude and justice, the writ may well become a tool of oppression and
inequity.In

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

341

VOL.374,JANUARY23,2002 341

Baezvs.Baez

thiscase,consideringthereasonscitedbypetitioner,weareoftheviewthat
thereisnosuperiororurgentcircumstancethatoutweighsthedamagewhich
respondentwouldsufferifhewereorderedtovacatethehouse.Wenotethat
petitioner did not refute respondents allegations that she did not intend to
use said house, and that she has two (2) other houses in the United States
wheresheisapermanentresident,whilehehadnoneatall.Merelyputting
up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending
appeal. To do so would make execution routinary, the rule rather than the
exception.
SameSameLegalSeparationPleadingsandPracticeAnactionfor
legalseparationisnotonewheremultipleappealsareallowed.Now,isan
action for legal separation one where multiple appeals are allowed? We do
notthinkso.InRomanCatholicArchbishopofManilav.CourtofAppeals,
258 SCRA 186, 194 (1996), this Court held: xxx Multiple appeals are
allowed in special proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with
accounting,inactionsforpartitionofpropertywithaccounting,inthespecial
civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage. The rationale
behindallowingmorethanoneappealinthesamecaseistoenabletherest
of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is
resolvedbythecourtandheldtobefinal.
SameSameSameTheeffectsoflegalseparation,suchasentitlement
to live separately, dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community or
conjugal partnership, and custody of the minor children, follow from the
decree of legal separationthey are not separate or distinct matters that
may be resolved by the court and become final prior to or apart from the
decreeoflegalseparation.Theissuesinvolvedinthecasewillnecessarily
relate to the same marital relationship between the parties. The effects of
legal separation, such as entitlement to live separately, dissolution and
liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership, and custody
of the minor children, follow from the decree of legal separation. They are
notseparateordistinctmattersthatmayberesolvedbythecourtandbecome
final prior to or apart from the decree of legal separation. Rather, they are
mereincidentsoflegalseparation.Thus,theymaynotbesubjecttomultiple
appeals.

PETITIONSforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionandaresolution
oftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
JesusN.Borromeoforpetitioner.

342

342 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baezvs.Baez

Abello,Concepcion,Regala&Cruzforprivaterespondent.

QUISUMBING,J.:
1
These two petitions stem from the decision dated September 23,
1996oftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebu,Branch20,inCivilCase
2
No. CEB16765. The first seeks the reversal of the Court of
 2
No. CEB16765. The first seeks the reversal of the Court of
Appeals decision dated March 21, 1997, setting aside the orders
dated October 1 and
3
November 22, 1996 of the Regional Trial
Court. The second prays for the reversal of the resolution dated
February 10, 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. CV
56265,denyingthemotiontodismiss.
Theantecedentfacts,asgatheredfromthepartiespleadings,are
asfollows:
On September 23, 1996, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu,
Branch 20, decided Civil Case No. CEB16765, decreeing among
others the legal separation between petitioner Aida Baez and
respondent Gabriel Baez on the ground of the latters sexual
infidelitythedissolutionoftheirconjugalpropertyrelationsandthe
division of the net conjugal assets the forfeiture of respondents
onehalf share in the net conjugal assets in favor of the common
childrenthepaymenttopetitionerscounselofthesumofP100,000
as attorneys fees to be taken from petitioners share in the net
assetsandthesurrenderbyrespondentoftheuseandpossessionof
aMazdamotorvehicleandthesmallerresidentialhouselocatedat
MariaLuisaEstateParkSubdivisiontopetitionerandthecommon
childrenwithin15daysfromreceiptofthedecision.
Thereafter, petitioner filed an urgent exparte motion to modify
saiddecision,whilerespondentfiledaNoticeofAppeal.
The trial court granted petitioner Aida Baez urgent ex parte
motiontomodifythedecisiononOctober1,1996byapprovingthe
CommitmentofFeesdatedDecember22,1994obligingpetitioner
topayasattorneysfeestheequivalentof5%ofthetotalvalueof

_______________

1CARollo,pp.5892.

2Rollo,G.R.No.132592,pp.3144.

3Rollo,G.R.No.133628,pp.1724.

343

VOL.374,JANUARY23,2002 343
Baezvs.Baez

respondentsidealshareinthenetconjugalassetsandorderingthe
administratortopaypetitionerscounsel,Atty.AdelinoB.Sitoy,the
sum of P100,000
4
as advance attorneys fees chargeable against the
aforecited5%.
Inanothermotiontomodifythedecision,petitionerAidaBaez
soughtmoralandexemplarydamages,aswellaslitigationexpenses.
On October 9, 1996, she filed a motion for execution pending
appeal. Respondent Gabriel Baez filed a consolidated written
opposition to the two motions, and also prayed for the
reconsiderationoftheOctober1,1996order.
OnNovember22,1996,thetrialcourtdeniedAidasmotionfor
moralandexemplarydamagesandlitigationexpensesbutgavedue
coursetotheexecutionpendingappeal.Thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, the petitioners

motiontomodifydecisionisherebyordereddenied.But,petitionersmotion
forexecutionofdecisionpendingappealisherebygranted.Consequently,let
a writ of execution be issued in this case to enforce the decision for (1)
respondent to vacate the premises of the small residential house situated in
Maria Luisa Estate Park Subdivision, Lahug, Cebu City and for (2)
respondenttosurrendertheuseandpossessionofsaidMazdamotorvehicle
togetherwithitskeysandaccessoriesthereoftopetitioner.
Atty. Edgar Gica, the Special Administrator, appointed in this case, is
hereby ordered to make the necessary computation of the value of the one
half (1/2) share of petitioner in the net remaining conjugal assets of the
spouseswithin10daysfromreceiptofthisorder.
The petitioner is hereby ordered to post a bond in the amount of
P1,500,000.00 to answer for all the damages that respondent may suffer
arising from the issuance of said writ of execution pending appeal and to
further answer for all the advances that petitioner may have received from
the Special 5Administrator in this case pending final termination of this
presentcase.

Inturn,inapetitionforcertiorari,GabrielBaezelevatedthecaseto
the Court of Appeals. On March 21, 1997, the appellate court
rendereditsdecision,thus:

_______________

4CARollo,p.24.

5CARollo,pp.122123.

344

344 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baezvs.Baez

WHEREFORE, the Order dated October 1, 1996 and the Omnibus Order
datedNovember22,1996,insofaras(1)itauthorizedthereleaseofthesum
of P100,000.00 to private respondents counsel as the advanced share of
privaterespondent[AidaBaez]inthenetremainingconjugalassets,and(2)
granted the motion for execution pending appeal by ordering petitioner
[GabrielBaez]tovacatethepremisesofthesmallresidentialhousesituated
inMariaLuisaEstateParkSubdivision,Lahug,CebuCity,andtosurrender
theuseandpossessionoftheMazdaMotorvehicletoprivaterespondentare
herebySETASIDE.ThewritofexecutiondatedDecember2,1996andthe
Order dated December 10, 1996 granting the motion filed by the sheriff to
make symbolic delivery of the subject house and motor vehicle to the
administratorofthepartnershiparealsoSETASIDE.
Asprayedforbypetitioner,theAdministratoroftheconjugalpartnership
is hereby ordered to cause the reimbursement by counsel for the private
respondent [Aida Baez] of the amount of P100,000.00 released to him as
advancepaymentofattorneysfees.
6
SOORDERED.

On February 10, 1998, the Court of Appeals denied Aidas motion

forreconsideration.Hence,thepetitioninG.R.No.132592,filedby
hereinpetitioner.
In the meantime, the trial court gave due course to Gabriels
Notice of Appeal and elevated on April 15, 1997 the entire case
records to the Court of Appeals. Aida filed with the Court of
Appeals a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Gabriel
had failed to file with the appellate court a Record on Appeal. On
February10,1998,theCourtofAppealsdecidedthemotion,thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitionerappellants motion to

dismissfiledonNovember3,1997isherebyDENIED.Theappointmentof
the petitionerappellee as administratrix of the conjugal properties is hereby
AFFIRMED.
In view of petitioners Motion to Withdraw her own appeal filed on
November27,1997,andforfailingtopaytherequireddocketfeewithinthe
prescribed period under Rule 41, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the appeal instituted by the petitioner Aida P. Baez is hereby
DISMISSED.

_______________

6Rollo,G.R.No.132592,pp.1718.

345

VOL.374,JANUARY23,2002 345
Baezvs.Baez

In continuance of the appeal of respondentappellant [Gabriel Baez], he is

herebyorderedtofilehisbriefwiththecourtwithin45daysfromreceiptof
thisresolution.Thepetitionerappellee[AidaBaez]shallfileherownbrief
with the court within 45 days from receipt of the petitionerappellants
[GabrielBaez]brief.7
SOORDERED.

The appellate court also denied herein petitioners motion for

reconsideration,hence,thepetitioninG.R.No.133628.
On January 19, 2000, we consolidated the two petitions.
PetitionerAidaBaeznowaversthattheCourtofAppealserred:
I.G.R.No.132592

. . . IN SETTING ASIDE THE GRANT OF EXECUTION PENDING

APPEAL BY THE TRIAL COURT OF THE PORTIONS OF ITS
DECISION ORDERING RESPONDENT TO VACATE THE SMALLER
RESIDENTIAL HOUSE LOCATED AT THE MARIA LUISA ESTATE
PARK SUBDIVISION, CEBU CITY, AND TO PAY P100,000.00 TO
PETITIONERS COUNSEL AS ATTORNEYS FEES TO 8
BE TAKEN
FROMHERSHAREINTHENETCONJUGALASSETS.

II.G.R.No.133628:

. . . IN NOT GRANTING PETITIONERS MOTION TO DISMISS

RESPONDENTS ORDINARY APPEAL AND/OR NOT RETURNING
THERECORDSOFCIVILCASENO.CEB16765TOTHEREGIONAL
9
TRIALCOURTOFCEBU.

In G.R. No. 132592, petitioner manifested that she no longer

questions the Court of Appeals decision on the Mazda vehicle
because respondent repossessed it. As to the residential house, she
claimed that being conjugal in nature, justice requires that she and
herchildrenbeallowedtooccupyandenjoythehouseconsidering
thatduringtheentireproceedingsbeforethetrialcourt,shedidnot
have the chance to occupy it. Further, she posted a 10
bond of
P1,500,000forthedamageswhichrespondentmaysuffer. For

_______________

7Rollo,G.R.No.133628,p.10.

8Rollo,G.R.No.132592,p.66.

9Rollo,G.R.No.133628,p.20.

10Rollo,G.R.No.132592,p.37.

346

346 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baezvs.Baez

thesereasons,sheaskedforexecutionpendingappeal.Theamount
ofP100,000asadvancepaymenttohercounselwasadropinthe
bucketcomparedtothebondsheposted,accordingtoher.Shealso
suggestedasanalternativethatshesimplyberequiredtoputupan
additional bond. She also agreed to submit to an accounting as
regularadministratrixandtheadvanceattorneysfeesbechargedto
hershareinthenetconjugalassets.
In his comment, respondent denied petitioners allegation that
she did not have the chance to occupy the residential house. He
averredthatshecouldhave,hadshechosento.Accordingtohim,as
the inventory of the couples properties showed, petitioner owned
two houses and lots and two motor vehicles in the United States,
wheresheisapermanentresident.Respondentcontendedthatthere
was no compelling reason for petitioner to have the judgment
executedpendingappeal.
Essentially, the core issue in G.R. No. 132592 is whether
executionofjudgmentpendingappealwasjustified.
As held in Echaus vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 381, 386
(1991), execution pending appeal is allowed when superior
circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may
resultfromtheissuanceofthewrit.Otherwise,insteadofbeingan
instrumentofsolicitudeandjustice,thewritmaywellbecomeatool
11
ofoppressionandinequity.
Inthiscase,consideringthereasonscitedbypetitioner,weareof
the view that there is no superior or urgent circumstance that
outweighs the damage which respondent would suffer if he were
ordered to vacate the house. We note that petitioner did not refute
respondents allegations that she did not intend to use said house,
andthatshehastwo(2)otherhousesintheUnitedStateswhereshe
isapermanentresident,whilehehadnoneatall.Merelyputtingup
a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution
pendingappeal.Todosowouldmakeexecutionroutinary,therule
12
ratherthantheexception.

_______________

11Valenciavs.CA,G.R.No.89431,184SCRA561,567(1990).

12Ibid.

347

VOL.374,JANUARY23,2002 347
Baezvs.Baez

Similarly,wearenotpersuadedthattheP100,000advancepayment
topetitionerscounselwasproperlygranted.Weseenojustification
to preempt the judgment by the Court of Appeals concerning said
amount of P100,000 at the time that the trial courts judgment was
alreadyonappeal.
In G.R. No. 133628, petitioner Aida Baez contends that an
action for legal separation is among the cases where multiple
appeals may be taken. According to her, the filing of a record13on
appeal,pursuanttoSection2(a),Rule41oftheRulesofCourt, is
requiredinthiscase.Sheconcludesthatrespondentsappealshould
have been dismissed for his failure to file the record on appeal
withinthereglementaryperiod,asprovidedunderSection1b,Rule
14
50oftheRulesofCourt.
Petitionerlikewisepraysthat,intheeventthatwedonotdismiss
GabrielBaezappeal,weshoulddirecttheappellatecourttoreturn
therecordsofthecasetotheRTCofCebu.Thereafter,accordingto
her, respondent should file his record on appeal for approval and
transmittaltotheCourtofAppeals.Inthealternative,shepraysthat
theappellatecourtretainonlythepleadingsandevidencenecessary 15
toresolverespondentsappealpursuanttoSection6,Rule44 and
Section6,Rule

_______________

13Sec.2.ModesofAppeal.

(a) OrdinaryappealTheappealtotheCourtofAppealsincasesdecidedbythe
RegionalTrialCourtintheexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdictionshallbetaken
by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or
finalorderappealedfromandservingacopythereofupontheadverseparty.
Norecordonappealshallberequiredexceptinspecialproceedingsandother
casesofmultipleorseparateappealswherethelawortheseRulessorequire.
Insuchcases,therecordonappealshallbefiledandservedinlikemanner.

14Section1,Rule50,RulesofCourt.Groundsfordismissalofappeal.Anappeal

may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee,onthefollowinggrounds:xxxb)Failuretofilethenoticeofappealorthe
recordonappealwithintheperiodprescribedbytheseRules.
15Section6,Rule44,RulesofCourt.Dispensingwithcompleterecord.Where

the completion of the record could not be accomplished within a sufficient period
allottedforsaidpurposeduetoinsuperableorex

348

348 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baezvs.Baez
16
135 oftheRulesofCourt,andreturntherestofthecaserecordsto
theRTC. 17
Inturn,respondentarguesthatSection39ofB.P.129 expressly
abolishedtherequirementofarecordonappeal,exceptinappealsin
18
special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109, and other cases
whereinmultipleappealsareallowed.Anactionforlegalseparation,
he avers, is neither a special proceeding nor one where multiple
appealsareallowed.
Now,isanactionforlegalseparationonewheremultipleappeals
areallowed?Wedonotthinkso.
In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals,
258SCRA186,194(1996),thisCourtheld:

_______________
 tremelydifficultcauses,thecourt,onitsownmotionoronmotionofanyofthe
parties,maydeclarethattherecordanditsaccompanyingtranscriptsandexhibitsso
faravailablearesufficienttodecidetheissuesraisedintheappeal,andshallissuean
orderexplainingthereasonsforsuchdeclaration.
16Section6,Rule135,RulesofCourt.Meanstocarryjurisdictionintoeffect.

Whenbylawjurisdictionisconferredonacourtorjudicialofficer,allauxiliarywrits,
processesandothermeansnecessarytocarryitintoeffectmaybeemployedbysuch
courtorofficerandiftheproceduretobefollowedintheexerciseofsuchjurisdiction
isnotspecificallypointedoutbylaworbytheserules,anysuitableprocessormodeof
proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or
rules.
17 Section 39, BP 129. Appeals.The period for appeal from final orders,
resolutions,awards,judgments,ordecisionsofanycourtinallcasesshallbefifteen
(15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or
decisionappealedfrom:Provided,however,Thatinhabeascorpuscases,theperiod
for appeal shall be fortyeight (48) hours from the notice of the judgment appealed
from.
Norecordonappealshallberequiredtotakeanappeal.Inlieuthereof,theentire
record shall be transmitted with all the pages prominently numbered consecutively,
togetherwithanindexofthecontentsthereof.
Thissectionshallnotapplyinappealsinspecialproceedingsandinothercases
wherein multiple appeals are allowed under applicable provisions of the Rules of
Court.
18AppealsinSpecialProceedings.

349

VOL.374,JANUARY23,2002 349
Baezvs.Baez

x x x Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for

recovery of property with accounting, in actions for partition of property
with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain and
foreclosureofmortgage.Therationalebehindallowingmorethanoneappeal
inthesamecaseistoenabletherestofthecasetoproceedintheeventthata
separateanddistinctissueisresolvedbythecourtandheldtobefinal.

In said case, the two issues raised by therein petitioner that may
allegedly subject of multiple appeals arose from the same cause of
action, and the subject matter pertains to the same lessorlessee
relationshipbetweentheparties.Hence,splittingtheappealsinthat
case would only be violative of the rule against multiplicity of
appeals.
Thesameholdstrueinanactionforlegalseparation.Theissues
involved in the case will necessarily relate to the same marital
relationshipbetweentheparties.Theeffectsoflegalseparation,such
as entitlement to live separately, dissolution and liquidation of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership, and custody of the
19
minor children, follow from the decree of legal separation. They
 19
minor children, follow from the decree of legal separation. They
arenotseparateordistinctmattersthatmayberesolvedbythecourt
and become final prior to or apart from the decree of legal 20
separation. Rather, they are mere incidents of legal separation.
Thus,theymaynotbesubjecttomultipleappeals.
Petitionersalternativeprayersthatincasewedonotdismissthe
appeal, we return the records to the trial court and require
respondenttofilearecordonappeal,orwereturntherecordstothe
trial court and retain only the pleadings and orders relevant to the
appeal,areuntenable.Ifwegrantthefirst,weareeffectivelysaying
that the instant case is one involving multiple appeals, which it is
not.Ifweallowthesecond,weareeffectivelyapplyingbyanalogy,
Section 6, Rule 44 and Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court,
without petitioner
21
showing support therefor in law or
jurisprudence.

_______________

19CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Article63.

20See,e.g.,A.M.TOLENTINO,ICIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES333(1990

ED.),ondivisionofproperties.
21Supra,notes15and16.

350

350 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baezvs.Baez

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionsareDENIEDforlackofmerit.
ThedecisionandresolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SP
No. 42663 and CAG.R. No. CV56265, respectively, are hereby
AFFIRMED, so that the Order dated October 1, 1996, of the
Regional Trial Court authorizing the release of P100,000 to
petitioners counsel the Omnibus Order dated November 22, 1996
granting the motion pending appeal the writ of execution dated
December2,1996andtheOrderdatedDecember10,1996granting
themotionbythesherifftomakesymbolicdeliveryofthehouseand
vehicleareSETASIDE.Further,theAdministratoroftheconjugal
partnership is ORDERED to cause the reimbursement by
petitionerscounselofthereleasedamountofP100,000.TheCourt
ofAppealsisherebyDIRECTEDtogiveduecoursetorespondents
appeal, and the Division Clerk of Court of this Court is likewise
DIRECTED to promptly remand the record of these cases to the
CourtofAppeals.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
 Bellosillo(Chairman),Mendoza,Buena and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ.,concur.

Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.

Notes.Thedemolitionaspectofthedecisionsubjectofthewrit
of execution pending appeal cannot be implemented without a
special order for that purpose. (Carreon vs. Mendiola, 220 SCRA
214[1993])
Acourtmaytakecognizanceofamotionforexecutionpending
appealfiledbyapartywithinitsperiodtoappeal,asthefilingofan
appeal by a losing party does not automatically divest the adverse
partyoftherighttoaskforexecutionpendingappeal,and,thetrial
courtcouldvalidlyactthereonevenaftertheexpirationoftheperiod
toappealorperfectionoftheappeal,butbeforethetransmittalofthe
record of the case to the appellate court. (Provident International
ResourcesCorp.vs.CourtofAppeals,259SCRA485[1996])

o0o

351

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.