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
 

   
March-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-433 March 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO ROBLE

    083 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-592 March 2, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARLOS DAYRIT

    083 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-1446 March 4, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON DELGADO

    083 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-2821 March 4, 1949 - JOSE AVELINO v. MARIANO J. CUENCO

    083 Phil 17


  • G.R. No. L-560 March 9, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RUFO ALFARO

    083 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2821 March 4, 1949 - JOSE AVELINO v. MARIANO J. CUENCO

    083 Phil 17


  • G.R. No. L-560 March 9, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RUFO ALFARO

    083 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-905 March 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO PACATANG

    083 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1949 - MAMERTO RAMIREZ ET AL. v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-2120 March 9, 1949 - JOSE ALVAREZ v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-1706 March 10, 1949 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. BAGONG PAGKAKAISA OF THE EMPLOYEES

    083 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-2591 March 15, 1949 - EMILIO Z. CABABASADA v. CIRIACO VALMORIA

    083 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-1060 March 17, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SERGIO REVILLA Y DORINGO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. L-1489 March 17, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RUFINO LUPERA

    083 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-1868 March 17, 1949 - MANUEL V. GALLEGO v. KAPISANAN TIMBULAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA

    083 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. L-2734 March 17, 1949 - PHIL. TRUST COMPANY v. LUIS MA. ARANETA ET AL.

    083 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-852 March 19, 1949 - LEONIDA MARI v. ISAAC BONILLA

    083 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-1639 March 19, 1949 - FLORENCIO REYES v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 141

  • R-CA. No. 157 March 24, 1949 - FELICIDAD LEGASPI v. EL AHORRO INSULAR

    083 Phil 149

  • G.R. Nos. L-1940-42 March 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO LAGATA

    083 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-1350 March 26, 1949 - TOMAS MEDRAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    083 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949 - SHIGENORI KURODA v. RAFAEL JALANDONI

    083 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-456 March 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CUCUFATE ADLAWAN

    083 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-1548 March 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO BASCON

    083 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-1614 March 30, 1949 - TEODORA DE LA CRUZ v. ASOCIACION ZANJERA CASILIAN

    083 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-1974 March 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO INGALLA

    083 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-1440 March 31, 1940

    CO CHIONG v. MIGUEL CUADERNO

    083 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-1766 March 31, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE DANAN

    083 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-1891 March 31, 1949 - CO CHIONG ET AL. v. MAYOR OF MANILA

    083 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-2514 March 31, 1949 - ANG LIN CHI v. OSCAR CASTELO

    083 Phil 263

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-2120   March 9, 1949 - JOSE ALVAREZ v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ<br /><br />083 Phil 104

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2120. March 9, 1949.]

    JOSE ALVAREZ ET AL., Petitioners, v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE, Respondents.

    Juan S. Rustia, for Petitioners.

    Reyes & Castañeda and Jose M. Luison for Respondents.

    Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon for the Government.

    Calanog & Alafriz for the receiver.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CERTIORARI; AVAILABILITY OF REMEDY; QUESTION INVOLVED TO THE FIRST FINALLY PASSED UPON AND DECIDED BY THE LOWER COURT. — In the present case, the lower court did not act upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the order appointing S.C.M. as receiver because of the filing of the petition for prohibition in said case L-1878. 1 The lower court should be given the chance of deciding said question before petitioners can appear before us to raise the same question.

    2. ID.; ID.; ORDINARY APPEALS AS THE PROPER REMEDY; CASE AT BAR. — As regards the orders of the lower court of January 22 and February 13,1948, because of which petitioners failed to secure the dismissal of the complaint in civil case No. 9039, the proper remedy for petitioners is by ordinary appeal in due time.


    D E C I S I O N


    PERFECTO, J.:


    Petitioners pray that the Court of First Instance of Laguna be declared without jurisdiction to take cognizance of civil case No. 9039, entitled "Colegio de San Jose versus Jose H. Guevara Et. Al.," and that the orders issued in said case on December 10, 1947, January 22, 1948 and February 13, 1948, be set aside.

    The complaint in said case was filed in December 10, 1947, and on said date the lower court appointed Segundo C. Mastrili as receiver.

    According to petitioners, said receiver, with the assistance of MP soldiers, compelled petitioners to deliver to him their crops of palay, and that petitioners filed on December 22, 1947, an urgent petition asking for the reconsideration of the appointment of the receiver, but that said motion has never been acted upon. On January 21, 1948, petitioners filed a petition seeking resolution of their motion, but the lower court failed to resolve said motion.

    It is also alleged that on December 31, 1947, petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint but their motion was denied on January 22, 1948. Then they moved for the reconsideration of this order of denial, but their motion for reconsideration was also denied on February 13, 1948.

    Petitioners contend that the order of December 10, 1947, appointing Segundo C. Mastrili as receiver, and the orders of denial of January 22 and February 13, 1948 are illegal and null and void for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Because the order appointing the receiver was issued without complying with the requirements of the law, and in a complaint where no specific land, improvements, or crops of palay are litigated, much less concerning the crops of palay in the lands occupied by petitioners as owners, and that said complaint has the effect of depriving petitioners of the possession of said lands.

    (b) The lower court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the money claimed in the complaint is covered by the law on moratorium; the judgment in civil case No. 6663 intended to be revived, has prescribed; there is no jurisdictional or positive allegation in the complaint to the effect that petitioners are responsible for the payment of said judgment; the whole judgment in said case was transferred by the Colegio de San Jose to the Commonwealth of the Philippines on September 27, 1939; the Colegio de San Jose who appears as plaintiff is non-existing having been abolished by the decree of expulsion of Jesuits in 1767; and petitioners were not parties in the civil case No. 6663.

    Petitioners further allege that the receiver has deprived petitioners of their properties to the extent of reducing them to complete destitution and misery.

    Respondents answered that the lower court has jurisdiction over the subject matter controverted in civil case No. 9039; that petitioners are either parties, privies or successors in interest, agents or representatives, tenants or aparceros of the parties- plaintiff in civil case No. 6663 whose judgment is intended to be revived; and that the petition for receivership falls under the cases enumerated in section 1, of Rule 61, Rules of Court, because petitioners are insolvent and have refused for several years to have the produce of the land in question applied to the satisfaction of the judgment sought to be revived, and that the appointment of the receiver is authorized by section 3 of said Rule 61.

    Respondents allege also that the ownership of the Colegio de San Jose over the property in question is recognized by contracts, ratified by law and confirmed by courts of justice; that the rights and choses of action over the judgment sought to be enforced were never sold or transferred to the Government: that the right to enforce said judgment is not covered by the moratorium and has not prescribed; that the lower court did not act with grave abuse of discretion is not resolving petitioners’ petition for reconsideration of the order appointing a receiver because a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction, involving the same issues raised in the petition, was presented before the Supreme Court on December 24, 1947, on behalf of the other defendants in civil case No. 9039, and the respondent judge had no other alternative than to issue the order dated January 9, 1948, suspending any action on the aforesaid petition for reconsideration until the Supreme Court shall have decided said petition for prohibition.

    The issues in the present case are substantially the same as those in the case of Ramirez v. Ibañez (83 Phil., 97), wherein it was decided by majority decision to dismiss the case on the ground that the lower court should first be given the chance of deciding the issues pending therein, before petitioners could be allowed to seek remedy from the Supreme Court.

    In the present case, the lower court did not act upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the order appointing Segundo C. Mastrili as receiver because of the filing of the petition for prohibition in said case (Ramirez v. Ibañez, supra). The lower court should be given the chance of deciding said question before petitioners can appear before us to raise the same question.

    As regards the orders of the lower court of January 22 and February 13, 1948, because of which petitioners failed to secure the dismissal of the complaint in civil case No. 9039, the proper remedy for petitioners is by ordinary appeal in due time.

    Petition dismissed. With the dismissal of the petition it is not necessary to make any pronouncement on the incidental matters raised by petitioners.

    The foregoing is the decision of the majority, from which the writer dissents.

    The writer, consistent with his dissent in L-1878, 2 is of opinion that, pending the decision on the merits of civil case No. 9039, the status quo should be maintained to the effect that petitioners’ possession of the lands they hold be respected and that they be not deprived of their crops of palay because receivership does not have the purpose of disturbing a legal status quo, but rather to preserve it.

    Moran, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Briones and Tuason, JJ., concur.

    Paras, J., concurs in the result.

    Separate Opinions


    FERIA, J.:


    I concur in the dismissal of the petition.

    Endnotes:



    1. 83 Phil., 96.

    2. 83 Phil., 97.

    G.R. No. L-2120   March 9, 1949 - JOSE ALVAREZ v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ<br /><br />083 Phil 104




    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