Sales vs. Sales GR No. 174803 | Julky 13, 2009 | J.

Quisumbing FACTS Marywin Albano Sales filed for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and separation of properties against her husband, Mayor Reynolan T. Sales Reynolan filed for the declaration of the nullity of the their marriage Consolidated and tried jointly Jan 4, 2004 RTC declared marriage void due to mutual psychological incapacity, and directed them to liquidate, partition, and distribute their common property (FC 147) within 60 days from receipt of decision, and comply with FC 50, 51, and 52 as may be applicable June 16, 2003 After the decision became final, Marywin filed for execution and a manifestation listing her assets ith Reynolan for partition Reynolan opposed motion - RTC already ordered the distribution of their common properties without specifying what these were - Marywin has no share in the properties she identified because these were the fruits solely of his undustry - Not a co-ownership did not live together as husband and wife - Marywin appropriated rentals of his properties and disposed one of them without his consent - PRAYED for deferral of the resolution of the motion for execution issues he raised should be resolved first Sept 3, 2003 RTC set the case for hearing on Sept 25, 2003 and ordered the reception of evidence on claims Nov 24, 2003 Marywin filed a reiterative motion for execution to implement the decision and to order partition of common properties Copy was furnished to Reynolans counsel Nov 28, 2003 Reiterative motion heard in the absence of Reynolan and his counsel; RTC issued an order approving the proposed project of partition; clerk of court ordered to execute deeds of conveyance to distribute 8 townhouse units Dec 16, 2003 Reynolan moved to reconsider RTCs Order, prayed for its reversal, and reinstatement of Sept 25, 2003 Order (reception of evidence before partition) - Grant of Marywins motion preempted issues he raised Marywin opposed Reynolans motion - Issues of alleged fraudulent sale and nonaccounting of rentals ere already waived by Reynolan when he failed to set them up as compulsory counterclaims in the case Court ordered liquidation and distribution; already a resolved issue April 12, 2004 RTC denied Reynolans MR July 26, 2006 CA ruled in favor of Nolan; remanded case to lower court for reception of evidence ISSUE Whether or not CA erred when it entertained respondents appeal from an order granting the issuance of a writ of execution HELD NO. 1) There were matters of genuine concern that had to be addressed prior to the dissolution of the property relations of the parties as a result of the declaration of nullity of their marriage. Allegations regarding the collection of rentals without proper accounting, sale of common properties without the husbands consent and misappropriation of the proceeds thereof, are factual issues which have to be addressed in order to determine with certainty the fair and reasonable division and distribution of properties due to each party. 2) The extent of properties due to respondent is not yet discernible without further presentation of evidence on the incidental matters he had previously raised before the RTC. Since the RTC resolved these matters in its Orders dated November 28, 2003 and April 12, 2004, disregarding its previous order calling for the reception of evidence, said orders became final orders as it finally disposes of the issues concerning the partition of the parties common properties. As such, it may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Court of Appeals via ordinary appeal. DISPOSITION CA decision AFFIRMED Remanded to RTC for reception of evidence