535 Phil. 830
GARCIA, J.:
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants.On November 23, 2001, the petitioners, through their new counsel, Atty. Raul dela Cruz, filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's aforementioned decision on the following grounds:
This Court declares the Affidavit of Adjudication dated August 10, 1995 null and void.
Consequently, it is ordered that all documents executed, issued or made flowing from said herein-nullified affidavit of adjudication are also annulled. This includes the Deed of Sale of Portion of Land dated December 19, 1995, the Deed of Donation of Parcel of Land dated October 10, 1996, the Transfer Certificates of Titles No. T-46214, T-46215, T-46216 and all tax declarations relating to them like Tax Declarations Nos. 15117, 15118, 15119, 15189, 93-014-15296 and 15859.
The Register of Deeds of La Union, the Provincial Assessor of La Union and the Municipal Assessor of ARINGAY, La Union are hereby directed to effect the cancellation of all transfer certificates of titles and tax declarations herein mentioned.
Original Certificate of Title No. Ro-3184 (8325) should be restored. The Register of Deeds is ordered to do so.
The newly-issued duplicate copy thereof is voided.
Defendants Melchor Juloya and Manuel Refuerzo are ordered to pay plaintiff's (sic) attorney's fees in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00). They are also ordered to pay TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) in litigation expenses. In addition, the two (2) defendants mentioned (Melchor Juloya and Manuel Refuerzo) are ordered to pay plaintiffs jointly and severally the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) in moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
In an order dated December 18, 2001, the trial court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, to wit:
- That the trial court has no jurisdiction over the original case;
- That the issue of filiation of Manuel Refuerzo was never raised in the complaint and thus the trial court erred in disputing his legitimacy;
- That the property right of Francisco Refuerzo was automatically transmitted upon his death in favor of Manuel;
- That the court erred in declaring that Manuel is not a son of Francisco; that being a legitimate son of Francisco, the conveyances made in favor of third persons were valid and effective;
- That upon the death of the mother of the plaintiffs (children of the first marriage with Francisco), the conjugal partnership was terminated that resulted to ½ share to Francisco and the other ½ to the children of the first marriage; and
- That the second marriage of Francisco to Maria Rulloda created a new conjugal property relationship and out of the marriage, Manuel was born who automatically succeeded to said properties decreed in OCT No. RO-3184.
In the determination of whether the deeds or instruments have to be annulled, specifically the Affidavit of Adjudication, the issue as to whether Manuel Refuerzo is a legitimate child of Francisco Refuerzo and Maria Rulloda has to be passed upon. It appears, as was found by the Court, that Manuel Refuerzo is the son of Romeo Refuerzo and therefore a grandson of Francisco Refuerzo Sr.Alleging that they received a copy of the aforequoted order only on January 4, 2002, the petitioners, through Atty. Dela Cruz, filed with the lower court a Notice of Appeal on January 8, 2002.
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Moreover, as observed by Atty. Pablo M. Olarte, this Motion for Reconsideration was filed by a counsel purporting to be a co-counsel when in fact as a matter of record, Atty. Lazaro C. Gayo, is still the chief counsel on record, without the latter's approval or conformity for orderly representation.
Atty. Olarte argued that the Motion filed by Atty. Raul dela Cruz is a mere scrap of paper.
SO ORDERED.
Let a writ of execution issue in accordance with the dispositive portion of the decision of this Court dated October 31, 2001 with the exception of the award of attorney's fees, litigation expenses and moral damages. Such part of the dispositive portion of the decision (award of attorney's fees, litigation expenses and moral damages) may be executed when the decision has become final.On January 5, 2002, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforequoted Order of execution pending appeal, which motion was denied by the trial court in its subsequent Order of January 23, 2002.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed orders of public respondent AFFIRMED in toto.Hence, petitioners' present recourse raising the following issues:
SO ORDERED.
We DENY.
- Whether the CA overstepped its jurisdiction in affirming the issuance of the contested writ of execution pending appeal committed by the RTC without passing judgment upon the issue of jurisdiction and propriety of the action raised by petitioner;
- Whether the RTC and CA erred in declaring petitioner Manuel Refuerzo as not the son of the deceased Francisco Refuerzo, Sr., married to the late Maria Rulloda although he (sic) has no authority or jurisdiction to do so;
- Whether or not the RTC and CA have jurisdiction or authority to declare the birth certificate of petitioner as null and void;
- Whether Article 170 of the New Civil Code bars respondents from impugning the legitimacy of petitioner Manuel Refuerzo;
- Whether the RTC and CA erred in not dismissing the complaint considering that the nature of the case was that of an intestate estate proceeding; and
- Whether the RTC and CA erred in declaring all adjudication and deeds of sale as null and void ab initio considering that he (sic) has no authority.
Section 2. Discretionary execution. -Discretionary execution may be granted by the court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is still in possession of the original records thereof. At the time the RTC issued the questioned orders, that court still had jurisdiction over the main case since the petitioners, at the time the challenged orders were issued, had not yet perfected their appeal from the October 31, 2001 decision of the same court. Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal only on January 8, 2002, whereas the order of execution pending appeal was issued way back on December 19, 2001, as reiterated in the Order of January 23, 2002 denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the first.
(a) Execution of a judgment or a final order pending appeal - On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.Clearly, prior to the transmittal of the records to the appellate court, the trial court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties, among which is to order execution pending appeal. Hence, the RTC acted within its discretion in issuing the order of execution pending appeal and in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration thereof. As stated earlier, the trial court issued its order of execution pending appeal on December 19, 2001 on motion of the respondent heirs due to the petitioners' disposal of parts or portions of the property subject of the litigation. In fine, the CA committed no error in affirming the said errors of the trial court. Indeed, for the petitioners to stay execution pending appeal, their remedy would have been to post a supersedeas bond under Section 3, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This, they failed to do.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 9 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. [Emphasis supplied.]