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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2377   May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO<br /><br />083 Phil 934

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2377. May 31, 1949.]

    THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO and OSCAR CASTILLO, Judge, Respondent.

    Lorenzo B. Vizconde and Cireneo A. Punzalan for Petitioner.

    Guillermo B. Guevara for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EMINENT DOMAIN; DAMAGES TO BE ASSESSES AND ESTABLISHED AT THE VERY END OF THE PROCEEDINGS; PAYMENT OF DAMAGES IS MADE AFTER RENDITION OF EXECUTORY JUDGMENT. — The damages caused in condemnation proceedings are to be assessed and established and paid for at the very end of the proceedings, that is, after a definite order shall have been issued either allowing and approving condemnation, or dismissing the petition for it, and the payment of damages is to be made after the rendition of an executory judgment.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The law contemplates that compensation should be paid only after judgment of condemnation.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    On December 31, 1947, the President of the Philippines authorized the Rural Progress Administration to expropriate a certain piece of land described in T.T. No. 9961, situated in Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal, belonging to the respondent Justa G. Vda. de Guido, for the purpose of reselling it at cost price to bona fide tenants or occupants. Acting upon said authority and by virtue of the powers conferred by law (Executive Orders Nos. 191, 206, and Commonwealth Acts Nos. 538 and 539), the Rural Progress Administration, thru the Republic of the Philippines, filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal civil case No. 400 (entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Justa G. Vda. de Guido) for said expropriation. The amount of P19,730, which was then the assessed value of the land, was fixed by the lower court as the provisional value of said land, and, after the plaintiff- petitioner had deposited said amount with the provincial treasurer of Rizal, the court issued an order on January 6, 1948, ordering temporary possession in favor of the petitioner. Before actual delivery or possession was made, however, respondent Guido filed her objection not only as to the propriety of the condemnation proceedings, but also as regards the sufficiency of the deposit. The Philippine National Bank, in whose favor the land was said to have been mortgaged in the sum of P115,000, also intervened.

    Acting upon the manifestation of the respondent and intervenor, the trial court issued an order on January 23, 1948, fixing the sum of P118,780 as the provisional value of the land, this being based on the new (1948) assessed value of the same. The order authorizing possession of the land by the plaintiff was lifted until the deposit of that amount could be made. On March 16, 1948, the plaintiff, in addition to the original deposit of P19,730, deposited with the provincial treasurer of Rizal a check drawn against the Rehabilitation and Finance Corporation in the sum of P99,050, thereby making a sum total of P118,780, as deposit.

    On March 16, 1948, an order was issued which, besides acknowledging the actual deposit of P118,780 as required, ordered the provincial sheriff of Rizal to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, and possession was actually delivered by the sheriff to the chief of the legal division of the Rural Progress Administration on March 18, 1948.

    Defendant Justa G. Vda. de Guido then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with mandatory injunction in the Supreme Court (G. R. No. L-2089), seeking the recall and cancellation of the order of March 16, 1948. This Tribunal, on March 23, 1948, issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, commanding the trial court to recall its order of March 16, which granted the possession of the land to the Rural Progress Administration, until further orders. Accordingly, the trial court issued an order of March 24, 1948, recalling and cancelling its order of March 16, 1948.

    Pending the hearing of that petition (L-2089) before the Supreme Court, the defendant Guido, in the condemnation proceedings before the lower court, filed a motion before that court on March 29, 1948, seeking to deduct, from the amount of P19,730, first deposited by the plaintiff, the amount of P7,534.52 said to represent the unpaid back and current rentals from July 1946 to March 31, 1948, due from some of the tenants occupying the land, subject of the expropriation, as appearing on a list of supposed delinquent tenants attached to her petition. Despite opposition on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner, the trial court, in its order of April 13, 1948, authorized the withdrawal of the said amount from the deposit of P19,730, and two days thereafter, the amount of P7,534.52 was actually withdrawn by defendant’s counsel from the provincial treasury of Rizal.

    The plaintiff filed a motion on April 19, 1948, to reconsider and set aside the order of April 13, 1948. Pending hearing of said motion for reconsideration, defendant Guido filed another motion of June 28, 1948, alleging that from April 1 to June 30, 1948, there was due and payable to her by way of rental of tenants on the land in question, the sum of P3,981.66, but that the amount of P833.15 which constitutes the deposit made by certain tenants in the respective ejectment cases pending in the justice of the peace court of Caloocan and which had been turned over to her by order of the justice of the peace, should be deducted from the rentals due from April 1 to June 30, 1948, and she asked the court to order the provincial treasurer of Rizal to again pay the defendant out of the balance existing in his possession, the sum of P3,143.51. After hearing the motion for reconsideration of the plaintiff of April 19, 1948, the trial court, in its order of July 17, 1948, denied the same. It is said that the court held in abeyance the motion of the defendant of June 28, 1948.

    Claiming that there is no other speedy and adequate remedy available to suspend, amend, annul and cancel the order of the trial court dated April 13, 1948, authorizing defendant Guido to receive the sum of P7,534.52 from the provincial treasurer of Rizal out of the amount of the deposit in his possession, the petitioner Republic of the Philippines has filed the present action of certiorari and prohibition with mandatory injunction, asking: (a) that pending final disposition of this case, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued against Hon. Oscar Castelo or any other judge who may take cognizance of civil case No. 400 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, commanding him to recall or set aside his order of April 13, 1948; (b) that defendant Guido or her attorney be commanded to return the deposit with drawn by her in the sum of P7,534.52 to the provincial treasurer of Rizal, and the sum of P833, to the justice of the peace court of Caloocan; (c) that a writ of prohibition be issued to the Honorable Oscar Castelo commanding him to dismiss the motion of June 28, 1948, and to refrain from entertaining any other motion that tends to diminish further the deposit of P118,780, made in the expropriation case; and (d) that, after hearing, an order be issued annulling and cancelling finally the trial court’s order of April 13, 1948.

    After hearing the prayer for injunction in the present case, this Court, on August 2, 1948, granted it, the writ to issue upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P200.

    Respondents Justa G. Vda. de Guido and Hon. Oscar Castelo have filed their answer to the petition for certiorari and prohibition on August 2, 1948.

    The theory of the petitioner is that the amount of P118,780 deposited by the petitioner in court pursuant to the provisions of section 3, Rule 69, of the Rules of Court, was made for the sole purpose of obtaining immediate possession of the land under expropriation, and that it could only be legally disposed of either as full or partial payment of the land and/or consequential damages after the right of condemnation is either granted or denied in a final and executory judgment; and that the award of the sum of P7,534.52, to be deducted from the deposit, constitutes a prejudgment on the issue of damages and will automatically defeat the purpose for which said deposit was made, for the reason that after said deduction, the amount of the deposit will fall short of the sum fixed by the court as the provisional value of the land; and that the right of the respondent Guido as landowner cannot be enforced in a single action, much less in a mere omnibus motion in the expropriation case, because the action against each tenant is a distinct and separate cause of action. The petitioner further claims that the order of April 13, 1948, was based on an erroneous finding and conclusion. For instance, while in paragraph 3 of the said order, the court said that counsel for the plaintiff does not contest nor deny the fact that the defendants listed in Exhibit I annexed to the motion of the defendant, are in arrears in the payment of rents, and that in fact and in truth they refused and still refuse to pay the corresponding rental to the defendant on the ground that the land is under expropriation proceedings. Petitioner claims that it was not in a position to contest the amount or deny that the tenants listed in Exhibit I were in arrears or they continued refusing to pay the corresponding rental; furthermore, that it is not correct, as found by the trial court, that part of the money deposited in court had been furnished and supplied by the same tenants, because, according to the record of the case, it was the plaintiff who made the deposit of P19,730 out of its funds.

    The respondents, in their answer, allege that the amount of P19,730, deposited by the plaintiff with the provincial treasurer of Rizal, was contributed by the tenants who urged the plaintiff to institute the condemnation proceedings, for the purpose of answering for the payment of the rental or damages which may be caused to respondent Guido on account of the expropriation proceedings; that the tenants, whose names appear in Annex I, attached to the motion, have refused to pay the agreed rental as early as July 1946, when the petitioner started negotiations for expropriation; that although the order of the trial court giving possession to the petitioner was recalled and cancelled, nevertheless, the tenants represented by the plaintiff and for whose benefit the present proceedings were filed, continue occupying the land; that the deposit of P19,730 made with the provincial treasurer of Rizal serves the double purpose of prepayment when the properties are finally expropriated and for indemnity for damages when the proceedings are dismissed; and that any rental due and payable on the land which respondent Guido fails to collect on account or because of the filing of the instant proceedings, is a true and legitimate element of damages assessable and chargeable against the plaintiff.

    After a careful study of this case and of the issues involved, we agree with the petitioner that the issuance of the order of the trial court of April 13, 1948, was unwarranted and illegal. Even assuming for a moment that the money deposited in court in condemnation proceedings in order to give possession of the land to the plaintiff is subject to the payment of damages consisting of rentals, in a case where defendant landowner, as in the present case, is still in possession of the land, still the law contemplates that said damages he assessed during the condemnation proceedings and that they were caused by reason thereof. The amount of P7,534.52, authorized by the trial court in its order of April 13, 1948 to be paid out of the deposit made in court, according to the very respondent Guido, includes rentals due and payable as far back as July 1946. Inasmuch as the condemnation proceedings were commenced only after December 31, 1947, the date of the authority given by the President of the Philippines to institute condemnation proceedings, it is obvious that said unpaid rentals, assuming them to be damages in expropriation proceedings, were caused long before the institution of these condemnation proceedings, and consequently, were not caused by reason thereof. Furthermore, there is force in the contention of the petitioner that if, pending condemnation proceedings, the amount of the deposit required by the court so that possession of the land may be given to the plaintiff is diminished, not only once but continually as is feared in the present case in order to pay for the supposed damages consisting of rentals due and payable by the tenants of the land, then the time will come when the amount of the deposit would be so inadequate so as to render precarious the provisional possession given to the plaintiff, unless said plaintiff, from time to time, made further deposits to keep the original amount intact. Besides, as well contended by the petitioner, the damages caused in condemnation proceedings are to be assessed and established and paid for at the very end of the proceedings, that is, after a definite order shall have been issued either allowing and approving condemnation, or dismissing the petition for it, and the payment of damages is to be made after the rendition of an executory judgment. In the present case, according to the petitioner, the condemnation proceedings are far from ended. No commissioner has as yet been appointed to ascertain the amount of compensation for the property sought to be expropriated, no commissioner’s report has been submitted, and no judgment has been rendered thereon by the trial court. The law contemplates that compensation should be paid only after judgment of condemnation. (Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus, 40 Phil., 550.)

    It may be added that the premature payment from the deposit to the landowner of rentals as damages presents a risk to the Government. There is always the possibility that, for valid reasons, the Government may abandon the condemnation proceedings. Supposing that after hearing and on the basis of evidence submitted, the court decides that the landowner is not entitled to damages, or that those she claimed and for which she had been prematurely paid are far in excess of those proven by her, then we shall have a situation where the Government will be obliged to bring an action against the landowner to recover that portion of the deposit that had been prematurely and improperly paid to her.

    Another consideration. The amount of P19,730, out of which the amount of rentals of P7,534.52 has been paid, had been deposited in court by the plaintiff, according to the petitioner, from its own funds, and was not deposited by the tenants so as to give the defendant some semblance of right or lien on the same. But, even assuming for a moment that it was deposited by the tenants, and that it belonged to them, there is at present no way of ascertaining the interest of each of the numerous tenants making said deposit in the amount so deposited. Some may have contributed more than the others, and it is possible that some of those making the deposit are not delinquent in the payment of rentals, or even if they were, the amount of delinquency of one may be more than that of another, or disproportionate to the amount of his contribution in the deposit with the court. How can we, therefore, summarily and arbitrarily, and without evidence, authorize the payment from said deposit of supposed back rentals without ascertaining first whether the deposit belong to the plaintiff Government or to the tenants themselves, and in the latter case, the interest of each particular tenant in the deposit compared to his supposed back or current rentals? Furthermore, there is evidence to the effect that the respondent Guido had filed ejectment proceedings in the justice of the peace court of Caloocan against at least some of the tenants involved. Said respondent could well pursue and obtain her remedy as to the payment of back rentals through those ejectment proceedings.

    In view of the foregoing, the petition for prohibition is hereby granted. The respondent Hon. Oscar Castelo, or anyone taking cognizance of civil case No. 400 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Justa G. Vda. de Guido Et. Al.) is hereby commanded to annul and cancel his order of April 13, 1948, to dismiss the motion of June 28, 1948 of respondent Guido, and to refrain from entertaining any similar motion that would tend to diminish the deposit mad in the lower court by the plaintiff in said case; and the respondent Justa G. Vda. de Guido, or her attorney, is hereby commanded to return and redeposit the sum of P7,534.52, withdrawn by them, to the provincial treasurer of Rizal. It appearing that the amount of P833 was supposedly voluntarily delivered by the justice of the peace of Caloocan to respondent Justa Vda. de Guido and that the same is not covered or included in the order of April 13, 1948, we refrain from making any finding or order about the same. Respondent Justa G. Vda. de Guido will pay the costs.

    Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2377   May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO<br /><br />083 Phil 934


    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