ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43850 April 3, 1939 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. JOHN R. MCFIE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45080 April 3, 1939 - FLORENCIA DUQUILLO v. PAZ BAYOT

    067 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 45112 April 3, 1939 - APOLONIA GOMEZ v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC.

    067 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45144 April 3, 1939 - M. E. GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    067 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 45696 April 3, 1939 - PLACIDA PASCASIO, ET AL. v. BENITO GUIDO

    067 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 45159 April 4, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO MA. DE MORETA

    067 Phil 146

  • G.R. Nos. 46231-46235 April 4, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO B. GONZALEZ

    067 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46239 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. ROSENDO MARCOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 46247 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 45177 April 5, 1939 - JOSE MARTINEZ v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA

    067 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 45193 April 6, 1939 - EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, ET AL. v. STEWART EDDIE TAIT

    067 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46510 April 5, 1939 - ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO RAMOS

    067 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 45517 April 5, 1939 - TARCILA L. TRINIDAD v. ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

    067 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 45738 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO CELORICO

    067 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 45748 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO VERA REYES

    067 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45955 April 5, 1939 - TEODORICA R. VIUDA DE JOSE v. JULIO VELOSO BARRUECO

    067 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 46144 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CINCO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 46409 April 5, 1939 - INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 46478 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO UG, ET AL.

    067 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 43822 April 10, 1939 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANCHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    067 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 45152 April 10, 1939 - HILARIA SIKAT v. JOHN CANSON

    067 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 45170 April 10, 1939 - ARSENIO DE VERA, ET AL. v. CLEOTILDE GALAURAN

    067 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45171 April 10, 1939 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MONTILLA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 45192 April 10, 1939 - IN RE: VICENTE J. FRANCISCO

    067 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 45200 April 10, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 45246 April 10, 1939 - CARLOS N. FRANCISCO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    067 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45273 April 10, 1939 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. FEDERICO ABAD

    067 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 45295 April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45302 April 10, 1939 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 45337 April 10, 1939 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. ANICETO MARAÑA

    067 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 45381 April 10, 1939 - FELIX BENEDICTO v. PERFECTO ESPINO

    067 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 45898 April 10, 1939 - JOVITA JOVEN v. MARCELO T. BONCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 46530 April 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO RABAO

    067 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 45123 April 12, 1939 - AGRIPINO INFANTE v. MARCOS DULAY

    067 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 45165 April 12, 1939 - GREGORIA JIMENEZ v. GEROMIMO JIMENEZ

    067 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 45277 April 12, 1939 - TORIBIO TEODORO v. JUAN POSADAS

    067 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 45306 April 12, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. LA URBANA

    067 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 45365 April 12, 1939 - FULTON IRON WORKS CO. v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    067 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 45375 April 12, 1939 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA BALDELLO

    067 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 45454 April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL.

    067 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 45515 April 12, 1939 - TOLARAM MENGHRA v. BULCHAND ARACHAND, ET AL.

    067 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 45742 April 12, 1939 - TIBURCIO MAMUYAC v. PEDRO ABENA

    067 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 45752 April 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN PERALTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 45821 April 12, 1939 - SOCONY-VACUUM CORPORATION v. LEON C. MIRAFLORES

    067 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 45899 April 12, 1939 - RAYMUNDO VARGAS v. NIEVES TANCIOCO,, ET AL.

    067 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 45405 April 13, 1939 - IN RE: ANTONIO FRANCO

    067 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45529 April 13, 1939 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO

    067 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 46428 April 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO TUMLOS

    067 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 45253 April 14, 1939 - FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 45310 April 14, 1939 - MARCOS J. ROTEA v. FRANCISCA DELUPIO

    067 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 45400 April 14, 1939 - MARCIANA LUNASCO v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 45536 April 14, 1939 - PEDRO AMANTE v. SERAFIN P. HILADO

    067 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 45601 April 14, 1939 - TAVERA-LUNA v. MARIANO NABLE

    067 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 45687 April 14, 1939 - CARIDAD ESTATE OF CAVITE, INC. v. VICENTE AVILA

    067 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 45931 April 14, 1939 - URBANO SERRANO v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ

    067 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 45340 April 15, 1939 - MARCELA BALLESTEROS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 45430 April 15, 1939 - TERESA GARCIA v. LUISA GARCIA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 45643 April 16, 1939 - RAYMUNDO CORDERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, Respondents.

    067 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 45576 April 19, 1939 - MAXIMIANO FUENTES v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PILA, LAGUNA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 45248 April 18, 1939 - VICENTE REYES VILLAVICENCIO v. SANTIAGO QUINIO

    067 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45418 April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 45701 April 18, 1939 - TIRSO GARCIA v. TY CAMCO SOBRINO

    067 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 45721 April 18, 1939 - MELCHOR LAMPREA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 45803 April 18, 1939 - VICENTA C. VDA. DE GUIDOTE v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    067 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 45923 Abril 18, 1939 - CHOA FUN v. EL SECRETARIO DEL TRABAJO

    067 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 46015 April 18, 1939 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. INES DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46043 April 18, 1939 - TERESA LANDRITO, ET AL. v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 46134 April 18, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    067 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 46317 April 18, 1939 - JUSTO QUIMING v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    067 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 45290 April 19, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAULA MERCADO

    067 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 45126 April 19, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALBINO PANUNCIO

    067 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 45166 April 19, 1939 - LEON C. VIARDO v. GALICANO GUTIERREZ

    067 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 45190 April 19, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO APAREJADO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 45531 April 19, 1939 - FRED OMNAS, ET AL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    067 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 46002 April 19, 1939 - SALVACION RIOSA v. STILIANOPULOS, INC.

    067 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 45715 April 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO OLIVERIA

    067 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 45934 April 20, 1939 - FORTUNATO DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45980 April 20, 1939 - MARIA MARTINEZ v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

    067 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 45493 April 21, 1939 - GERARDO GARCIA v. ANGEL SUAREZ

    067 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 45595 April 21, 1939 - JUAN POSADAS, ET AL. v. GO HAP, ET AL.

    067 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46046 April 21, 1939 - PROCOPIO GAQUIT v. DOROTEO CONUI

    067 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46570 April 21, 1939 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    067 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 45449 April 22, 1939 - TOMAS S. OCEJO v. CONSUL GENERAL OF SPAIN

    067 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46330 April 22, 1939 - IRENEO ABAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    067 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 45413 April 24, 1939 - LA YEBANA, CO., INC. v. JULIO L. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 45666 April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 45978 April 24, 1939 - MIGUELA ELEAZAR v. EUSEBIO ELEAZAR

    067 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 46029 April 24, 1939 - NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD v. LUIS MENESES

    067 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 45369 April 25, 1939 - ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. ALFFREDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 45544 April 25, 1939 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LORENZO ECHARRI

    067 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 45624 April 25, 1939 - GEORGE LITTON v. HILL & CERON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 45739 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA

    067 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 45755 April 25, 1939 - ASUNCION ABAD v. AMANDO AQUINO

    067 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45964 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITURO FALLER

    067 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 46035 April 25, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    067 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 46260 April 26, 1939 - PABLO TAMAYO v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 46356 April 25, 1939 - FRUCTUOSA VELASCO VDA. DE TALAVERA v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

    067 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 45403 April 26, 1939 - NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TONG LIN & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

    067 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 45519 April 26, 1939 - RUFINA SALAO, ET AL. v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 45521 April 26, 1939 - JOSE MORENO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO SAN MATEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 45598 April 26, 1939 - TAN PHO v. HASSAMAL DALAMAL

    067 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 45614 April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON

    067 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 45662 April 26, 1939 - ENRIQUE CLEMENTE v. DIONISIO GALVAN

    067 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 46366 April 26, 1939 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AI. .

    067 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 46492 April 26, 1939 - RAMON SOTELO v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 45173 April 27, 1939 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

    067 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 45359 April 27, 1939 - JACINTO M. DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR ARANETA

    067 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 45506 April 27, 1939 - FORTUNATO MANZANERO v. REMEDIOS BONGON

    067 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 45508 April 27, 1939 - SEGUNDA DEVEZA v. ERIBERTO BALMEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 45534 April 27, 1939 - JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO HIDALGO REAL

    067 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45694 April 27, 1939 - FRANCISCO YATCO v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    067 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 45724 April 27, 1939 - IGNACIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. TEODORO IBEA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 45741 April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 45185 April 28, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD ALDEGUER VIUDA DE ROMERO SALAS

    067 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 45464 April 28, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. CARMEN DE LUNA

    067 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 45625 April 28, 1939 - MARGARITA VILLANUEVA v. JUAN SANTOS

    067 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 45761 April 28, 1939 - JULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 45266 April 29, 1939 - SIMEON RAEL v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL

    067 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 45410 April 29, 1939 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. JOSE BERNABE

    067 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 45412 April 29, 1939 - COSME CARLOS, ET AL. v. COSME CARLOS

    067 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 45425 April 29, 1939 - JOSE GATCHALIAN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    067 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 45479 April 29, 1939 - FELIX ATACADOR v. HILARION SILAYAN

    067 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 45597 April 29, 1939 - MACARIA PASCUAL v. LORENZA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 45965 April 29, 1939 - AMPARO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    067 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46003 April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS

    067 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 46026 April 29, 1939 - JESUSA PORTILLO-RIVERA v. STRACHAN, MACMURRAY & CO., LTD.

    067 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 46604 April 29, 1939 - FRANCISCO MORFE, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 696

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46003   April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS<br /><br />067 Phil 686

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 46003. April 29, 1939.]

    SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, MARCIANO STO. DOMINGO and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, Petitioners, v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS, Respondent.

    Marcaida & Ocampo, for Petitioners.

    Celestino de Dios for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. JUDGMENT; EXECUTION WITHIN FIVE YEARS; MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. — The prevailing party in a civil action is entitled to a writ of execution of the final judgment obtained by him within five years from its entry (section 443, Code of Civil Procedure). But it has been repeatedly held, and it is now well-settled in this jurisdiction, that when after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final, facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask the court to modify or alter the judgment, to harmonize the same with justice and the facts.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID — In the instant case the respondent C alleged that subsequent to the judgment obtained by Sto. D., they entered into an agreement which showed that ,he was no longer indebted in the amount claimed of P995; but in a lesser amount. Sto. D. neither contradicted the allegation nor denied the agreement. If this is really true, there is no doubt that Sto. D. had no right to an execution for the amount claimed by him. In such circumstances it was the court’s duty to allow C to substantiate his allegation and thereafter to issue an execution for the connect balance owing under the judgment rendered against him and the agreement subsequently entered into.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; LIQUIDATION. — The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment without first effecting a liquidation and in taking the new that this liquidation should be made by the sheriff. Held: That the ruling is in accordance with law. The liquidation to be made was a judicial act incumbent upon the court which it could not legally delegate to the sheriff.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CERTIORARI. — The petitioners contend that the petition for certiorari sued out by the respondent in the Court of Appeals was improper because he could have appealed from the order of May 29, 1937. The Court of Appeals held that the remedy was proper because the Court of First Instance grossly exceeded its discretion. Held: That the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals is not error because if the respondent C had elected to appeal, this would not have proved an adequate and speedy remedy.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    The petitioners ask in their petition for certiorari for the review and reversal of the decision rendered in the case by the Court of Appeals declaring null and void the order of May 29, 1937 entered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner Marciano Sto. Domingo the sum of P995 plus the expenses which the execution may occasion, as well as the sale made by the sheriff in favor of the said Marciano Sto. Domingo, without costs.

    In civil case No. 6123 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, entitled Bonifacio Cleofas, Plaintiff, v. Marciano Sto. Domingo Et. Al., Defendants, the parties submitted the case for decision upon the following stipulation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Now come the parties in the above entitled case and respectfully pray this Honorable Court to approve the following stipulation and to enter judgment in accordance therewith:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the plaintiff shall remain to be the owner of the parcel of land in question, shall continue with the business of selling the lots as subdivided, and shall be the owner of all office equipment, furniture, supplies, plans, contracts, as well as any other paper related to the subdivision and the sale of the lots appearing in the inventory hereto attached, marked appendix A.

    "2. The defendant Marciano Sto. Domingo shall be relieved of any obligation arising from the sale of 83 lots to the purchasers thereof, the plaintiff herein assuming the obligation to issue the corresponding title to purchasers upon payment in full of the purchase price thereof.

    "3. That plaintiff shall pay’ defendant Marciano Sto. Domingo the sum of one thousand two hundred pesos (P1,200), Philippine currency, payable within the period of one (1) year from the date of the approval by the court of this stipulation, Provided, that one-half of any amount 80 collected monthly from buyers shall be paid on account of the said amount P1,200 to Marciano Sto. Domingo, through Atty. Felix D. Agcaoili of defendant, 310 Arias Building, Manila, and provided that should it appear afterwards that the said defendant, Marciano Sto. Domingo, had collected more than P1,082.50 from the sales of the said 83 lots, any excess of said amount shall be deducted from the said amount of P1,200 to be paid to him.

    "4. That defendant, Marciano Sto. Domingo, shall assume the obligation of paying the balance unpaid of the fee of surveyor who surveyed the subdivided lots of the land in question and of the Bureau of Lands for the perfection and approval of the subdivision plan of the land in question, the payment of which shall be made out of the first amount collected from the buyers.

    "5. That defendant, Marciano Sto. Domingo, shall have a preferential lien over the parcel of land in question (Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13063, Property Records of Rizal Province) same being, by virtue of this stipulation placed as guarantee for the payment unto said defendant Marciano Sto. Domingo by the plaintiff herein, as well as on any amount which shall accrue by virtue of the sale of the subdivided lots, which lien shall remain subsisting until the said amount of P1,200 mentioned in paragraph three hereof shall have been fully paid; and, that said defendant Marciano Sto. Domingo shall waive any and all right to reimbursement for any other expenses he may have incurred. Provided, that failure on the part of the plaintiff to pay within the period of one year as provided for in paragraph three hereof will give right to defendant Marciano Sto. Domingo to demand the payment, by virtue of the present stipulation, for whatever balance then remaining unpaid by plaintiff of the said sum of P1,200."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Pursuant to the said stipulation, the court rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the court approves the above-quoted stipulation in its entirety, and orders the said parties to comply strictly and faithfully with the conditions thereof, without costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The decision of the court having become final, the petitioner Marciano Sto. Domingo filed a motion on July 31, 1936, asking for the execution thereof on the ground that the respondent Bonifacio Cleofas had only paid the sum of P100 on account of the P1,200 to which he had been sentenced. Cleofas opposed the motion alleging, in turn, that he had already paid approximately P200. On April 12, 1937, Sto. Domingo filed another motion reiterating his prayer for the execution of judgment, alleging this time that the correct balance in his favor was P995. Cleofas again objected and in his written opposition stated that he and Sto. Domingo had entered into an agreement, subsequent to the decision obtained by the latter, whereby he owed a much lesser amount than that claimed, wherefore, the execution for the amount of P996 did not lie. The agreement and the allegations of Cleofas are set out in the decision of the Court of Appeals as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In consideration of the sum of eighty pesos (P80), Philippine currency, which I now receive from Mr. Bonifacio Cleofas on account of the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 6123 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, entitled ’Bonifacio Cleofas v. Marciano Sto. Domingo Et. Al.,’ I waive the motion of July 31, 1936 which I have presented in said case for the issuance of a writ of execution of said judgment; it being understood and agreed that the balance of the said judgment, after deducting the said P80 and other amounts heretofore paid by said Mr. Cleofas on account of the said judgment, will be paid to me monthly from December, 1936 until fully paid, through the delivery to me of one-half of the entire income which he may obtain from month to month from the lots of the ’Talipapa Subdivision’ already sold as well as from those which he may in the future sell. Provided that, the failure to comply with this condition for three (3) successive months would be a sufficient cause for me to ask for the execution of the said judgment rendered in the aforementioned case for the total balance owing until the date of noncompliance, precluding the said Mr. Cleofas from opposing the same.

    "In testimony whereof, I sign today, November 14,1936, in the City of Manila; and

    "That the plaintiff has not failed to comply with this agreement, for more than one-half of all the amounts which he has collected from the purchasers of lots of the subdivision in the months of December, 1936, and January, February and March, 1937, which amounted to about P200 only, was paid to the defendant Sto. Domingo as follows: P25 was turned over to Attorney Felix D. Agcaoili of the said defendant; and P80 was paid to surveyor Antonio Gamboa who prepared the subdivision plan of the land in question, as unpaid balance of the fees of said surveyor. This last payment was made by the plaintiff under paragraph 4 of the stipulation which serves as the basis of the decision rendered in this case, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "4. That defendant, Marciano Sto. Domingo, shall assume the obligation of paying the balance unpaid of the fee of the surveyor who surveyed the subdivided lots of the land in question and of the Bureau of Lands for the perfection and approval of the subdivision plan of the land in question, the payment of which shall be made out of the first amount collected from the buyers.

    "That the plaintiff and the defendant agreed also on the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . and provided that should it appear afterwards that the said defendant, Marciano Sto. Domingo, had collected more than P1,082.50 from the sales of the said 83 lots, any excess of said amount shall be deducted from the said amount P1,200 to be paid to him.

    "That according to the invoices now in the hands of the plaintiff, the defendant his collected from the holders of lot of the subdivision more than P1,082.50; wherefore, the difference should be deducted from the amount of the judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Resolving the last motion of the petitioner Sto. Domingo and the opposition thereto of the respondent Cleofas, the court entered on May 29, 1937 the order mentioned at the beginning of this decision, directing the latter to pay to the former the sum of P995, plus the incidental expenses of the execution. Cleofas attempted to appeal from the order and asked for the suspension of execution, but the court denied the petition and held that it was within the sheriff’s power "to resolve all the incidents preventing and obstructing the complete execution of said final judgment." Thereupon, Cleofas sued out a writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals and there obtained a writ of injunction to restrain the sheriff from executing the said order. The writ came late and the sheriff sold the property of the respondent Cleofas at public auction to the petitioner Marciano Sto. Domingo himself.

    The petitioners alleged that the Court of Appeals erred: (1) in holding that there is room to doubt the validity of the judgment the execution of which was ordered; (2) in holding that the parties in case No. 6123 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have an opportunity to present evidence; (3) in holding that the liquidation of accounts was not made; (4) -in coming to the conclusion that a grave error was committed, constituting an abuse of discretion, in the issuance of the order of May 29, 1937 by Judge Sixto de la Costa; and (5) in granting the writ of certiorari, for aside from the absence of abuse of discretion, the petitioner Cleofas could have appealed from the order of May 29, 1937.

    The three assigned errors only-raise the question of whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal, under the facts and circumstances of the case, could legally order the execution of the judgment rendered in civil case No. 6123, or whether it should have given the respondent Bonifacio Cleofas an opportunity to substantiate his allegation that he was no longer indebted to the petitioner Marciano Sto Domingo in the amount claimed by the latter, but in a much lesser amount.

    Obviously a prevailing party in a civil action is entitled to a writ of execution of the final judgment obtained by him within five years from its entry (section 443, Code of Civil Procedure). But it has been repeatedly held, and it is now well-settled in this jurisdiction, that when after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final, facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask the court to modify or alter the judgment to harmonize the same with justice and the facts (Molina v. De la Riva, 8 Phil., 669; Behn, Meyer & Co. v. McMicking, 11 Phil., 276; Warner, Barnes &; Co. v. Jaucian, 13 Phil., 4; Espiritu v. Cross. field and Guash, 14 Phil., 588; Flor Mata v. Lichauco and Salinas, 36 Phil., 809). In the instant case the respondent Cleofas alleged that subsequent to the judgment obtained by Sto. Domingo, they entered into an agreement which showed that he was no longer indebted in the amount claimed of P995, but in a lesser amount. Sto. Domingo neither contradicted the allegation nor denied the agreement. If this is really true, there is no doubt that Sto. Domingo had no right to an execution for the amount claimed by him. In such circumstances it was the court’s duty to allow Cleofas to substantiate his allegation and thereafter to issue an execution for the correct balance owing under the judgment rendered against him and the agreement subsequently entered into. We, therefore, hold that the assigned errors are without merit.

    The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment without first effecting a liquidation and in taking the view that this liquidation should be made by the sherifs. We hold that the holding is in accordance with law and that the fourth assigned error is without foundation. The liquidation to be made was a judicial act incumbent upon the court which it could not legally delegate to the sheriff.

    The petitioners contend that the petition for certiorari sued out by the respondent in the Court of Appeals was improper because he could have appealed from the order of May 29, 1937. The Court of Appeals held that the remedy was proper because the Court of First Instance grossly exceeded its discretion. We hold that the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals is not error because in the respondent Cleofas had elected to appeal, this would not have proved an adequate and speedy remedy (section 217, Code of Civil Procedure; De Castro and Morales v. Justice of the Peace of Bocaue, 33 Phil., 595; Valdez v. Querubin, 37 Phil., 774). The decision under review being in accordance with law, we deny the writ of certiorari, with the costs to the petitioner Marciano Sto. Domingo. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 46003   April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS<br /><br />067 Phil 686


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED