Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 45250 September 21, 1936 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

063 Phil 467:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45250. September 21, 1936.]

GERVASIA ENCARNACION and URBANO NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, FACUNDO SAN AGUSTIN, Justice of the Peace of San Pedro Makati, Rizal, and AYALA U CIA., Respondents.

Juan S. Rustia, for Petitioners.

The respondent Justice of the Peace in his own behalf.

Ramires & Ortigas for the other respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; ABUSED OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION. — The facts of the case raise only one question and it is whether or not the respondent justice of the peace acted with abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writs of execution in the civil cases in question. If he abused his discretion, the remedy should be granted (section 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure; De Castro and Morales v. Justice of the Peace of Bocaue, 33 Phil., 595; Valdez v. Querubin, 37 Phil., 774; Leung Ben v. O’Brien, 38 Phil., 182; Salvador Campos y Cia. v. Del Rosario, 41 Phil., 45; Larrobis v. Wislizenus and Smith, Bell & Co., 42 Phil., 401). This court is of the opinion that said justice of the peace acted with abuse of discretion in issuing the writs of execution in question, not because he failed to give previous notice to the petitioners that he was going to take such step, but because, as the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance in civil case No. 6494 has been appealed from by the petitioners, if the alias executions were carried out, the appeal now pending would be a delusion and this court would be deprived of its jurisdiction to render a final judgment to determine, once and for all, the rights of the parties and the controversies raised by them. The remedy of certiorari lies, among other cases, when it is for the purpose of preventing a wrong which, under the circumstances, would be irreparable (11 C.J., p. 129, sec. 78).


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


This petition for certiorari has been filed to set aside the alias writs of execution issued by the justice of the peace court of San Pedro Makati, Rizal, on July 25, 1936, in civil case Nos. 1415 and 1416. Upon petition of the petitioners, who filed a bond in the sum of P500, a preliminary injunction was issued restraining the respondents, until further notice, from executing or carrying out the alias executions questioned in the petition.

In said justice of the peace court, the respondent Ayala y Compañia brought actions of ejectment against the petitioners, civil cases Nos. 1415 and 1416, for failure of the latter to pay the stipulated rent corresponding to several months. The petitioners were the owners of two houses, valued at P1,500, built on lands belonging to said respondent, both the occupation thereof and the rent having been stipulated in contracts of lease. In the complaints, the respondent prayed that the petitioners be ordered to pay the rent due and payable and also to vacate the lands occupied by their houses. After the trial, judgment was rendered by the justice of the peace court ordering the petitioners to pay their indebtedness and to vacate the lands occupied by their houses. After the trial, judgment was rendered by the justice of the peace court ordering the petitioners to pay their indebtedness and to vacate the lands, with costs. The petitioners did not appeal and the judgments became final. Writs of execution were then issued and the sheriff enjoined the petitioners to remove their own expense. To avoid said executions, the petitioners to remove their houses otherwise they would be demolished at their own expense. To avoid said executions, the petitioners instituted civil case No. 6494 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, praying in the complaint that a preliminary injunction, which should later become final, be issued, and that Ayala y Compañia and the sheriff be enjoined from carrying out their design to demolish their houses. The preliminary injunction was issued because the petitioners had filed the bonds required. However, after the trial wherein evidence was presented, the Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint principally because, as the judgments of the justice of the peace court in the ejectment cases had become final, the respondent Ayala y Compañia was entitled to the execution thereof and the sheriff was obliged to carry them out. The petitioners excepted thereto and, their motion for a new trial having been denied, they announced their intention to file the bill of exceptions which was subsequently approved. The appeal has been docketed in the office of the clerk of this court under G.R. No. 45302. In the case instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the respondent justice of the peace was not joined in the complaint and therefore was not a party thereto.

The foregoing facts raise only one question and it is whether or not the respondent justice of the peace acted with abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writs of execution in the civil cases in question. If he abused his discretion, the remedy should be granted (sec. 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure; De Castro and Morales v. Justice of the Peace of Bocaue, 33 Phil., 595; Valdez v. Querubin, 37 Phil., 774; Leung Ben v. O’Brien, 38 Phil., 182; Salvador Campos y Cia. v. Del Rosario, 41 Phil., 45; Larrobis v. Wislizenus and Smith, Bell & Co., 42 Phil., 401). This court is of the opinion that said justice of the peace acted with abuse of discretion in issuing the writs of execution in question, not because he failed to give previous notice to the petitioners that he was going to take such step, but because, as the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance in civil case No. 6494 has been appealed from by the petitioners, if the alias executions were carried out, the appeal now pending would be a delusion and this court would be deprived of its jurisdiction to render a final judgment to determine, once and for all, the rights of the parties and the controversies raised by them. The remedy of certiorari lies, among other cases, when it is for the purpose of preventing a wrong which, under the circumstances, would be irreparable (11 C.J., p. 129, sec. 78).

The fact that the justice of the peace had not been joined as a party in civil case No. 6494 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, is not an obstacle to the foregoing conclusion. The truth is that failure to prevent compliance with the alias execution would cause irreparable damage to the petitioners because their appeal, now pending, would be a delusion. This court does not wish it understood in this decision that it advances its opinion on the merits of the pending appeal. The petition is granted rather to maintain the present status quo and, principally, in order that the rights of the parties interested in said appeal may be carefully considered and finally determined.

For the foregoing reasons, the alias executions issued by the respondent justice of the peace on July 25, 1936, are set aside, and the preliminary injunction issued in the case cancelled, without costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42258 September 5, 1936 - IN RE: VICTORIO PAYAD v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

    063 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 45174 September 5, 1936 - MAURICIO CRUZ & CO., INC. v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 44861 September 8, 1936 - EUGENIO TESTA v. C.A. VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 43206 September 9, 1936 - FELIX SEPAGAN v. PAULINO DACILLO

    063 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 43367 September 9, 1936 - MARIETA GARCIA, ET AL. v. TERESA GARCIA DE BARTOLOME

    063 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 45134 September 10, 1936 - GENANICHI ISHI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    063 Phil 428

  • Adm. Case No. 786 September 15, 1936 - TRANQUILINO MARAVILLA v. CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL

    063 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45141 September 15, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO VENUS

    063 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 45089 September 17, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR A. FLORES

    063 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 45116 September 17, 1936 - GO OCCO & CO. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 45125 September 17, 1936 - RICARDO CARREON v. M. BUYSON LAMPA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 45131 September 17, 1936 - RAMON SANTARROMANA, ET AL. v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 45224 September 17, 1936 - MARIA D. CABUHAT v. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 45220 September 18, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TAPEL

    063 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 45250 September 21, 1936 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    063 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 45282 September 21, 1936 - BENITO MATEO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 45129 September 24, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO FOLLANTES, ET AL.

    063 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 45252 September 24, 1936 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 42884 September 28, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 41376 September 29, 1936 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ABALOS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 43101 September 29, 1936 - CIRIACO CHUNACO v. DELFINA TRIA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 42832 September 30, 1936 - LOURDES CATALA v. NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL.

    063 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 43486 September 30, 1936 - MUNICIPALITY OF GASAN v. MIGUEL MARASIGAN, ET AL.

    063 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 43824 September 30, 1936 - LEOCADIA SALOMON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DANTES

    063 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 44523 September 30, 1936 - ALEOSAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    063 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 44934 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON FRESCO

    063 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45178 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO S. OCBINA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINA BANDIAN

    063 Phil 530