[ G.R. No. L-3776. March 31, 1952 ] G.R. No. L-3776
[ G.R. No. L-3776. March 31, 1952 ]
JULIA RABACAL, IN HER CAPACITY AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSONS AND PROPERTIES OF THE MINORS JESUS, CORAZON, JULIO JR., FE, HELEN, RAMON AND ELI, SURNAMED BERINA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. PAULINO, DEMETRIA, JUAN TEOTIMO, ISABEL, NARCISO, AMPARO, VICTORINA, ANIANO, GREGORIA, GLICERIA, FLAVIANA, SURNAMED BERIÑA, AND GLICERIO, SALVADORA, SUSANA, SERAPION, SURNAMED OLIVA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
A complaint for partition was filed by the plaintiff in her capacity as guardian of her minor children had with the late Julio Beriña. This complaint was amended. After an answer to the amended complaint had been filed and several incidents which have no bearing on the question brought to us on appeal, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement in words and figures, as follows:
Come now the plaintiff and defendants, thru their respective attorneys, and to this Hon. Court respectfully submit the following agreed amicable settlement: That the parties herein agree to have the following parcels of land divided among themselves:
Parcels 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 mentioned in the amended complaint.
That the plaintiff herein renounces whatever right she has or she may have to parcels 3, 4, 14, and 15 of the amended complaint. Wherefore it is prayed that a decision be rendered, approving the foregoing agreed amicable settlement, without costs.
Upon that compromise the court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which is as follows:
WHEREFORE, the compromise is hereby approved and in consequence thereof, the wards, in representation of Julio Beriña, and the defendants are declared co-owners of parcels 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 in equal parts and the defendants of parcels 3, 4, 14, and 15, also in equal parts, ordering them to make the proper deeds of partition and to submit them to this Court for approval; otherwise, the Court shall appoint commissioners to make the partition pursuant to the Rules.
The judgment was rendered on 21 January 1949. Motions for reconsideration wherein she prayed that the partition of the parcels of lands be without prejudice to the claim for damages were filed by the plaintiff and oppositions thereto by the defendants. On 9 July 1949, upon another amicable settlement reached by the parties, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff P150 within one week from the date of the order in full settlement of her claim for damages and appointed the commissioners to partition the parcels of land “in accordance with the terms of the decision.” On 21 August 1949 the commissioners submitted for the approval of the court a proposed partition which reads, as follows:
PROYECTO DE PARTICION
Para tener base en la reparticion de los bienes de acuerdo con la decision de este Hon. Juzgado en esta cause, se especifican las partes envueltas en esta causa que son los siguientes:
Los demandantes menores representados por su madre, Julia Rabacal, llamados Jesus, Corazon, Julio J., Fe, Helen, Ramon y Eli son hijos y herederos del difunto Julio Beriña; El demandado Paulino Beriña es el unico hermano superviviente de los difuntos Pablo Beriña, Andres Beriña, Francisca Beriña de Oliva y Julio Beriña; Los demandados, 1) Demetria, 2) Juana, 3) Teotimo, 4) Isabel, 5) Narciso y 6) Amparo de apellido Beriña, son hijos y herederos del difunto Pablo, Beriña; Los demandados, 1) Victorina, 2) Aniano, 3) Gregoria, 4) Gliceria y 5) Flaviana, de apellido Beriña, son hijos y herederos del difunto Andres Beriña; Los demandados, 1) Glicerio, 2) Salvadora, 3) Susana y 4) Serapion, de apellido Oliva, son hijos y herederos de la difunta Francisca Beriña Oliva.
De tal modo que las parcelas 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 y 13 se dividiran por stirpes en cinco (5) partes iguales entre las partes y las parcelas 3, 4, 14 y 15 se dividiran por el mismo modo en cuatro (4) partes iguales entre los demandados solamente. Las descripciones de las mismas, segun la demanda enmendada, son como sigue:
(Here follows the description of the fifteen parcels of land exactly as they are numbered and described in the Amended Complaint.)
No estando medidos por un agrimensor competente las parcelas arriba descritas cuyas extensions podrian ser mas o menos de lo que constant en sus respectivas declaraciones de amillaramiento creemos conveniente hacer las adjudicaciones a ambas partes por parcelas.
ADJUDICACIONES
A los demandantes menores Jesus, Corazon, Julio Jr., Fe, Helen, Ramon y Eli de apellido Berina, hijos y herederos del difunto Julio Berina representados por su madre Julia Rabacal en su capacidad de tutora, se adjudica como su hijuela la PARCELA 8. Al demandado Paulino Berina se adjudican como su hijuela las PARCELAS 1 y 2, mas ¼ de cada una de las PARCELAS 3, 4, 14, y 15. A los demandados Demetria, Juana, Teotimo, Isabel, Narciso y Amparo de apellido Beriña, hijos y herederos del difunto Pablo Beriña, se adjudican como su hijuela las PARCELAS 7, 9, y 13, mas ¼ de cada una de las PARCELAS 3, 4, 14 y 15. A los demandados Victorina, Aniano, Gregoria, Gliceria y Flaviana de apellido Beriña, hijos y herederos del difunto Andres Beriña, se adjudican como su hijuela las PARCELAS 6 y 10, mas ¼ de cada una de las PARCELAS 3, 4, 14 y 15. A los demandados Glicerio, Salvadora, Susana y Serapion, hijos y herederos de la difunta Francisca Beriña de Oliva, se adjudican como su hijuela las PARCELAS 5, 11 y 12, mas ¼ de cada una de las parcelas 3, 4, 14, y 15. Por lo que respetuosamente se somete a este Honorable Juzgado este proyecto para su consideracion.
On 23 August, the commissioner for the defendants objected to the proposed partition on the ground that it amends the judgment rendered in the case. On the same day, the defendants moved the Court to relieve the commissioners from their duty and to declare them guilty of contempt of court and objected to the proposed partition on the same ground as that advanced by the commissioner who objected to the approval of the proposed partition submitted by the other two commissioners. The latter answered the defendants motion and the objection to the approval of the proposed partition. On 14 October 1949, after stating the incidents pertinent to the issue, the court denied the motion to discharge the commissioners and to declare them guilty of contempt of court and approved the proposed partition submitted by the two commissioners. From this order approving the proposed partition the defendants appealed. After quoting the pertinent parts of the amicable settlement and the dispositive part of the judgment rendered in the case copied at the beginning of this opinion, the court states:
It is obviously necessary, in order to arrive at a correct interpretation of this agreement, that an inquiry be made as to who are the “parties” in the case. In the original complaint, Julia Rabacal in representation of the minors Jesus, Corazon, Julio, Fe, Helen, Ramon and Ely, all surnamed Beriña, appear as plaintiffs, while only Paulino Beriña appears as defendant. In his answer, Paulino Beriña alleged that with the exception of parcels 3, 4, 14 and 15, all others belong in common to himself and to his deceased brothers and sisters, who as stated above, were the parents of the herein wards and other defendants. Because of these allegations in his answer, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend her complaint in order to include these persons or their heirs as defendants. In compliance with this order, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she included all of them as defendants, alleging in paragraph 4 that the deceased Julio Beriñaand the defendants are co-owners proindiviso of the parcels of land in question. In their answer, the defendants admit the allegations of said paragraph 4 except with respect to parcels 3, 4, 12, 13, 14 and 15. It is, therefore, clear from the pleadings that the “parties” in this case are the herein wards in representation of their deceased father, Julio Beriña, as plaintiffs, and Paulino Beriña in his own behalf and the other defendants in represenation of their respective deceased parents, as defendants. This is the reason why in the dispositive part of the decision the court stated among others that “the wards, in representation of Julio Beriña and the defendants were declared co-owners.” The decision is of course silent as to the capacity of the other defendants—whether they ought to partake in the partition individually or in representation of their respective deceased parents—but this silence should be interpreted in the light of the pleadings which reveal the true intention of the parties in their agreement, to wit: That the defendants, other than Paulino Beriña, should also receive their share by stirpes.
The judgment of the court rendered on 21 January 1949, which declares the plaintiffs, the children and heirs of the late Julio Beriña, and the defendants co-owners in equal parts of parcels 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and the defendants also in equal parts of parcels 3, 4, 14 and 15, and orders them to execute the proper deeds of partition and to submit the same to the court for approval, does not conflict with the prosed partition submitted by the commissioners for approval, as explained by the court in its order of 14 October 1949 appealed from, which denied the appellant’s motion to relieve the commissioners and to hold them in contempt of court, because the amicable settlement for the partition between the parties of parcels 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, described in the amended complaint, and the judgment of the court declaring the parties co-owners thereof in equal parts, cannot be construed as giving each minor child of the late Julio Beriña, the plaintiffs, and each one of the defendants who are children and heirs of the deceased brothers and sister of Paulino Beriña, the only surviving brother, the same share in the parcels of land owned by them in common. The proposed partition is in accordance with and carries out the intent of the parties as agreed upon in the amicable settlement and does not conflict with the judgment of the court. More, it is in accordance with law.[1] In view of the conclusion arrived at it is unnecessary to pass on the point raised by the appellants that the judgment rendered in the case is final and cannot be amended. The order appealed from approving the proposed partition is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. Paras, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur. Feria, J., took no part.