Lajom v.

Leuterio and Rafael Viola

G.R. No. L-13557; April 25, 1960
Facts:
1. This is a pet for writ of certiorari and mandamus to set aside orders of Judge
Leuterio in an ordinary action for the execution of judgment in G. R. No. L6457, entitled "Donato Lajom vs. Jose Viola, et al." (promulgated May 30,
1956) The Court quoted the facts and proceedings of said case:

Maximo Viola died on September 3, 1933. Judicial proceedings of his

testate estate were instituted in the Court of First Instance. An agreement
of partition and distribution was executed by and between Jose P. Viola,
Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola, legitimate children of Maximo Viola and Juana
Toura, whereby the properties left by their father, Maximo Viola, were
divided among themselves.
Donato Lajom filed a complaint praying, among other things, that he be
declared a natural child of Maximo Viola, impliedly recognized and
acknowledged in accordance with the laws in force prior to the Civil Code,
thereby being a co-heir of Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola; that
the agreement of partition and distribution executed in 1935 by these
three legitimate children of Maximo Viola be declared null and void and
that there be a new partition with 1/7 of the estate of Maximo given to him
and 2/7 to each of the other heirs.
CFI of Nueva Ecija found in favour of Donato and ordered the partition
among Jose, Rafael and Silvio as null and void and asked for the collation
of properties in question.
o Jose and Silvio were ordered to submit liquidation of fruits and
products of the 3 parcels of land that have come under their
administration
o Partition was ordered: 1/7 of said properties and products to Donato
and 2/7 each to Jose, Silvio and Rafael.
This decision of the CFI of Nueva Ecija was affirmed by the SC.

2. The case was remanded to lower court where Donato filed a motion for
execution of judgement.

Judge Leuterio claimed it wasnt clear what the properties of Maximo are
because in the original complaint of Donato, 75 parcels of land were
enumerated while the partition among Jose, Rafael and Silvio only
enumerated 47 parcels of land and now, Donato enumerated 84 parcels of
land.
As starting point, he said that undoubtedly of the 47 parcels belonged
to Maximo (since conjugal property) so accordingly, the defendants, who
are in possession of each and everyone of these 47 parcels, are hereby
ordered to deliver the same to the judicial administrator to be hereinafter
appointed, for his administration until the final partition in accordance with
the decision of this Court.

Rafael filed a report of what he received under the partition. Donato

noticed that his report did not contain the fruits of a Riceland with an area
pf 215 hectares allegedly donated by Maximo to Rafael.
o Donato wanted Rafael to include (collate) said Riceland to the
redistribution of estate.
o Rafael objected saying that the riceland was not mentioned or
included in the complaint filed in this case.
Judge Leuterio sided with Rafael saying that only the donations to
Jose and Silvio were questioned in the complaint and the
decisions dispositive portion only ordered those 2 to collate.
Properties donated to Rafael had not been put into questioned
and therefore cannot be deemed to have been embraced in the
dispositive requiring collation.

Donato is now questioning said order of the Judge Leuterio.

ISSUE:
WON properties not mentioned in the complaint of Donato can be ordered to be
collated NO.
WON Civil Case for annulment of partition became a special proceeding NO.
Ratio:
1. The decision affirmed by this Court in G. R. No. L-6457 ordained the collation
of the "properties in question". The properties in question were described in an
inventory attached to petitioner's original complaint in case No. 8077 and did
not include the aforementioned riceland, with an area of 215 hectares.
Indeed, Donato admits that he did not include, and could not have included or
mentioned it, in his complaint because, at the time of its filing, he did not know
of the existence of said property. Hence, the same was not in question in case
No. 8077, and was not covered by the decision therein rendered and
subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Case No. L-6457.
The decision of Judge Leuterio did not direct collation of all property but rather
asked Donato to submit report to list properties which he believes belong to
Maximo and that the other heirs can file and opposition thereto. Thus, it left
the question whether other properties should be collated or not open
for future determination. In any event, respondent Judge was merely
enforcing a decision that had already become final. Any order directing
what was not required in said decision and the same contained no
pronouncement with respect to the riceland adverted to above would be in
excess of his jurisdiction and therefore, null and void.
2. It is next alleged that petitioner having been the victim of preterition, the
institution of heirs made by the deceased Dr. Maximo Viola became ineffective,
and that Civil Case No. 8077 was thereby converted into an intestate
proceedings for the settlement of his estate. This contention is clearly untenable.
There might have been merit therein if we were dealing with a special
proceedings for the settlement of the testate estate of a deceased

person, which, in consequence of said preterition, would thereby

acquire the character of a proceeding for the settlement of an intestate
estate, with jurisdiction over any and all properties of the deceased. But, Civil
Case No. 8077 is an ordinary civil action, and the authority of the court
having jurisdiction over the same is limited to the properties described
in the pleadings, which admittedly do not include the aforementioned
riceland.