G.R. No. L-38228 September 12, 1975
MARCIANO YACAPIN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, BRANCH VIII, presided by HON. BERNARDO TEVES, and EUGENIA EDURIA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a partition suit over a 12,075-square-meter parcel of land. The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment on May 9, 1969, adjudicating the northern portion (2,437.88 sqm) to Marciano Yacapin as owner and possessor, and the remaining southern portion (9,537.12 sqm) to the heirs of Buenaventurada Salon. When a writ of execution was issued, the sheriff and a court-appointed commissioner discovered that the northern portion of the land had been completely eroded by the sea, leaving only 5,618 square meters of the original southern portion intact. Yacapin filed a motion praying that his adjudicated share be taken from this remaining 5,618 sqm. The lower court, in its assailed Order dated February 6, 1973, instead directed that the entire remaining area be delivered to the Salon heirs, prompting Yacapin to file this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Order of February 6, 1973, which allocated the remaining 5,618 square meters exclusively to the heirs of Buenaventurada Salon, thereby excluding Marciano Yacapin from any share in the surviving portion of the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of accession and the doctrine of res periit domino suo (the loss falls on the owner). The court clarified that Yacapin and the Salon heirs were not co-owners; the final judgment had already segregated their specific, distinct portions. Yacapin’s adjudicated northern portion was lost due to a fortuitous event (erosion by the sea), a risk borne solely by him as the owner of that specific parcel. The remaining 5,618 sqm was conclusively identified as part of the southern portion belonging exclusively to the Salon heirs. To grant Yacapin’s motion would unjustly appropriate part of the Salon heirs’ property to compensate for his loss, which was caused by force majeure. The lower court’s order was a proper exercise of its inherent power to control its processes to conform to law and justice, ensuring the execution complied with the substance of the final judgment by delivering only the surviving property to its rightful owners. The petition, treated as a special civil action for certiorari, was dismissed.