Case Digest: Quizon v. Castillo

Quizon v. Castillo
G.R. No. 49286, August 16, 1947

Petitioners seek the annulment of two orders of the CFI of Batangas relating to
the intestate of Gregorio Mayo Villapando, issued on July 26 and August 18, 1944. In
the first one, the lower court declared all the parties therein as heirs of the deceased,
divided all the estate into three parts and ordered petitioners to deliver one-third of the
estate to Josefa Mayo Villapando, unless they should post a bond in the amount of
P2,000 pending the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal interposed against the
lower court’s decision of the petition. The second order amended the first one to the
effect that petitioners should deliver two-thirds of the estate to Josefa Mayo Villapando,
and Amando, Ciriaco, David and Jose Morada, unless they should file a bond in the
amount of P2,000, pending the decision of the Supreme Court. The dispositive part of
the decision, sought to be executed through the orders of July 26 and August 18, 1944,
complained of by petitioners simply makes a declaration as to who are the heirs of
Gregorio Mayo Villapando, adding that Josefa Mayo is entitled to one-third, petitioners
to another third, and the Morada brothers to the last third.

ISSUE: Whether or not the questioned orders issued by respondent judge are valid

NO. The respondent judge acted in excess of its jurisdiction when he issued the
questioned orders, which provided for the delivery, at first, of one-third of the estate to
Josefa Mayo and later of two-thirds of the estate to Josefa Mayo and to the Morada
brothers, unless petitioners should file bond in the amount of P2,000. The decision
sought to be executed provided only for the declaration of heirs and of the shares each
set of heirs was entitled to. Nothing was provided in said decision as to the delivery of
shares from one person to another. Besides, it was premature to order the delivery of
shares to the heirs, when no project of partition has as yet been filed and approved. The
orders issued by respondent judge were set aside.