Arcenas vs.
Cinco
Case Ponente: ANTONIO, J
Decision Date: November 29, 1976
G.R. No. L-29288
Summary:
A widow, Teodora Vda. de Arcenas, sought to annul deeds of sale executed by
her son, Jovencio Arcenas, claiming they infringed upon her co-ownership rights
over certain properties. The legal issue revolved around whether the court's
decision was immediately executory and non-appealable.
Facts:
The case began on August 11, 1966, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
Teodora Vda. de Arcenas filed for the annulment of pacto de retro and sale
deeds executed by her son, Jovencio, in favor of Nemesio Acain and Rosa
Diongson. She asserted her rights as a co-owner of agricultural lands in
Cabangbang and Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu, and a residential lot in Poblacion,
Bantayan, Cebu. On June 9, 1967, the lower court declared her the rightful
owner of an undivided one-half share of the agricultural lands and ordered their
partition. Jovencio and the Acain spouses contested this ruling, resulting in
ongoing legal actions, including the appointment of a commissioner for
partition. The petitioners’ appeal was dismissed by the respondent Judge on
May 18, 1968, leading to a petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Issue:
1. Is the decision of the respondent court in Civil Case No. P-118, dated June 9,
1967, immediately executory and therefore not appealable?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, setting aside the
respondent court's Order of May 18, 1968, which dismissed the petitioners'
appeal.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court determined that the decision on June 9, 1967, was based
on an agreed statement of facts, not a judicial compromise. A judicial
compromise, under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, involves reciprocal
concessions to avoid or end a lawsuit. Here, although Teodora's ownership share
was acknowledged, the extent remained disputed, and the agreed facts didn't
resolve which property portions would be returned to her. The action sought
partition, and the court's partition order, requiring a deed of partition, was not
final. Further actions, like appointing a commissioner and reporting, were
needed for case resolution. The Supreme Court stressed equitable partition,
considering improvements by the Acain spouses, ensuring fair distribution to
those who made good faith improvements. This aimed to achieve a just
resolution of the dispute.
