Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1947 > July 1947 Decisions > G.R. No. L-962 July 28, 1947 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL.

078 Phil 739:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-962. July 28, 1947.]

FELIX AZOTES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL BLANCO and JULIAN FIGURA, Respondents.

Demetrio P. Sira for Petitioner.

Nicolas P. Nonato for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI; NEW ISSUES OF FACT BARRED. — New issues of fact not raised before the respondent court, cannot be taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in a proceeding for prohibition and certiorari.

2. ATTORNEYS; AUTHORITY TO APPEAR PRESUMED. — An attorney is presumed to have authority of the litigant whose representation he assumes until the contrary is clearly shown.

3. EXECUTION; CONTEMPT; REENTRY INTO REAL PROPERTY; TIME LIMIT. — Under Rule 64, section 3 (h), there is no limitation as to the time within which reentry into real property by a person after being dispossessed or ejected therefrom by proper judicial process, constitutes contempt. The five-year period provided in Rule 39 section 6 is the time within which execution of judgment may be asked for by motion. The motion for contempt is not a motion for execution, but a motion to punish a violation of such execution.

4. COURTS; DESTROYED RECORDS; RECONSTITUTION OF; ADMISSION OF JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION. — In a reconstitution, an admission made by one of the parties to the effect that there had been judgment and execution of judgment, cannot be nullified and its truth destroyed by the circumstance that the admission is made without prejudice to challenging the validity of the reconstitution proceeding.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


In the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, judgment was rendered in civil case No. 11396 brought by respondent Julian Figura against petitioner Felix Azotes regarding the title and possession of a parcel of land. Such judgment against petitioner, having become final and executory, was duly executed in 1940 and the property was delivered to respondent Julian Figura. After liberation, the record of the case was duly reconstituted and another writ of execution was issued on June 3, 1946. This writ, however, was later set aside upon motion of petitioner Felix Azotes on the ground that the judgment had already been executed prior to the war. On August 1, 1946, respondent Julian Figura filed a motion for contempt against petitioner Felix Azotes alleging (a) that on March 30, 1942, petitioner was summoned by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt for having cut ninety (90) feet of bamboo from the land already delivered to the respondent, but the proceedings for contempt could not be continued because of the Japanese invasion; and (b.) that the petitioner is still depriving respondent of the possession of the property and on several occasions took therefrom seven hundred feet of bamboo and other things in utter disregard the judgment rendered and executed. In virtue of this motion petitioner was ordered to appear before the court on September 13, 1946 and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for having entered again into the property formerly delivered to respondent by execution of judgment. On said date, September 13, 1946, petitioner failed to appear before the court and the explanations given by his attorney not being satisfactory, petitioner was ordered arrested to answer the charges for contempt. Hence this petition for prohibition and certiorari against the Court of First Instance of Iloilo predicated upon two grounds; namely, (a) that the order declaring the record of the case duly reconstituted is void there having been no notice upon him of the petition and hearing for reconstitution; and (b) that the court has no jurisdiction to punish for contempt a defendant who reentered the land delivered to to plaintiff more than five years ago.

With respect to the first ground, it appears from the record that notice of the motion for reconstitution and of its hearing was duly served upon Evidente & Evidente, Attorneys for the then defendant Felix Azotes on February 27, 1946, and that a copy of the order declaring the record duly reconstituted was served upon the same attorneys on Mar(h 21, 1946.

In this connection, new issues of fact are brought up by petitioner in his memorandum which have never been raised before the respondent court, such, for instance, as that .Attorneys Evidente & Evidente have ceased to be his Attorneys and nave no authority to bind him in the reconstitution proceedings. We cannot, however, take into consideration this new issue of fact not only because the respondent court had no opportunity to pass upon it but because it is unsupported by evidence and it yields to the circumstance that attorney Felix Evidente appeared be the respondent court in behalf of the herein petitioner the reconstitution proceedings, and by such appearance the Attorney is presumed to have authority of the litigant whose representation he assumed until the contrary clearly shown.

Furthermore, there seems to be no merit in the objection against the reconstituted record, for petitioner h self, in his opposition to the second motion for execution admitted that "the judgment sought to be enforced already complied by the defendant long before the war broke out as evidenced by Exhibit A," thus implying t there was really such judgment and there was such execution. It is true that this admission was made "without waiving our right to challenge the validity of the order reconstitution . . ." But such reservation cannot destroy the truth of the admission.

As regards the second ground, i. e., that the court has no authority to punish for contempt a defendant who re-entered the land delivered to plaintiff more than five years ago, Rule 64, section 3 (h) provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto.

"But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the accused party in court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.’

It is apparent from this provision that there is no limitation as to the time within which reentry constitutes con tempt. The reentry may take place more than five years after delivery by execution, and still it is contempt. The five-year period provided in Rule 39, section 6 is the time within which execution of judgment may be asked for by motion: The motion for contempt is not a motion for execution dismissed with costs against petitioner.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Padilla and Tuason, 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






July-1947 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-524 July 2, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL BEATO

    078 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-568 July 16, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN FRANCISCO

    078 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-322 July 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MANAYAO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-407 July 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL ALARCON

    078 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-962 July 28, 1947 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. L-1267 July 28, 1947 - LEONOR ARCEGA, ET AL. v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    078 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. L-1354 July 28, 1947 - FELIZA CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. EMILIO PEÑA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-1121 July 29, 1947 - CONCHITA VDA. DE SALUDES v. GREGORIO PAJARILLO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-1235 July 29, 1947 - AMADO BUENAVENTURA v. EULALIO GARCIA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-226 July 30, 1947 - VIRGINIA STA. MARIA-GARCIA, ET AL. v. GUSTAVO SANCHO

    078 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-430 July 30, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO M. ABAD

    078 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. L-894 July 30, 1947 - LUIS F. GENERAL v. JOSE R. DE VENECIA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-1255 July 30, 1947 - CARLOS TOLEDANO v. FELIX SEVERINO

    078 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-1287 July 30, 1947 - ONG SIT v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO

    078 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. L-1320 July 30, 1947 - SANTIAGO DEGALA v. PATPICIO C. CENIZA

    078 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-1335 July 30, 1947 - CECILIO BUENAVENTURA v. EMILIO PEÑA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 795

  • G.R. Nos. L-1400, L-1406 & L-1407 July 30, 1947 - FRANCISCO CUNAAN, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. 49160 July 30, 1947 - MARIANO A. DE CASTRO v. CASIMIRO TAMPARONG

    078 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-1031 July 31, 1947 - IRENEO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ANACLETO B. RAMOS

    078 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-1082 July 31, 1947 - FLORA AYLON v. FERNANDO JUGO

    078 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-1095 July 31, 1947 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SALVADOR GALLETO

    078 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. L-1156 July 31, 1947 - RICARDO ESPIRITU v. M. L. DE LA ROSA

    078 Phil 827

  • G.R. No. L-1302 July 31, 1947 - MIGUEL J. YSRAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-1319 July 31, 1947 - JUANA CANAFE v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

    078 Phil 836

  • G.R. No. L-1321 July 31, 1947 - ROBERTO LUPISAN v. FRANCISCO ALFONSO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-1419 July 31, 1947 - ROSARIO OCHING, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-1536 July 31, 1947 - RICARDO PARULAN v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 49212 July 31, 1947 - ERIBERTO DE LAS ALAS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    078 Phil 868