G.R. No. L-13557; April 25, 1960
DONATO LAJOM, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and RAFAEL VIOLA, respondents.

FACTS

The case stems from a prior Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. L-6457, May 30, 1956). Donato Lajom filed an action to be declared a natural, impliedly recognized child of the late Maximo Viola, to annul a 1935 partition agreement executed by Maximo’s legitimate children (Jose, Rafael, and Silvio Viola), and to secure a new partition awarding him one-seventh of the estate. The trial court and, on appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in Lajom’s favor. After this decision became final, Lajom moved for its execution in the lower court (Civil Case No. 8077). Respondent Judge Jose N. Leuterio issued an order on October 30, 1956, for its implementation. This order: (1) directed the delivery of 47 specific parcels (from the annulled partition) to a judicial administrator; (2) required Lajom to submit a list of other properties he believed belonged to Maximo Viola for a hearing to determine their inclusion; (3) ruled that properties donated by Maximo Viola and his wife to some defendants must be collated, but only one-half thereof and only their value at the time of donation; and (4) noted that the testamentary dispositions in Maximo Viola’s will, having preterited Lajom (a compulsory heir), were annulled. Lajom filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the respondent Judge’s orders and reinstate an earlier order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of October 30, 1956, regarding the execution of the final judgment in G.R. No. L-6457.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The respondent Judge was merely enforcing a final and executory decision. The order in question left open for future determination the question of whether properties other than the initial 47 parcels should be collated, which was in line with enforcing the judgment. The Court held that any order directing something not required by the final decision would be in excess of jurisdiction and null and void. The Court also addressed Lajom’s contention that the case was converted into an intestate proceeding due to preterition, finding it untenable. The Court clarified that Civil Case No. 8077 remained an ordinary civil action, limited to the properties described in the pleadings, and not a special proceeding for estate settlement that would encompass all properties of the deceased. The institution of corresponding intestate proceedings by the proper party was left without prejudice.