Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

089 Phil 122:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4143. May 28, 1951.]

SIXTO PAÑGILINAN, Petitioner, v. EMILIO PEÑA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA and CRISPULO Q. MANANSALA, Respondents.

Fidel Zosimo U. Canilao for Petitioner.

Crispin D. Baizas and Antonio A. Pido for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; EXECUTION; FAILURE TO DEPOSIT RENTS ON TIME; ILLNESS OF PARTY. — Execution is mandatory when the rents are not paid on time. The duty of the court to order such execution is ministerial and imperative although appellant’s failure to timely deposit rents was due to sickness.

2. EMINENT DOMAIN; SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS IN EJECTMENT; INAPPLICABILITY OF COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 538 and REPUBLIC ACT No. 409; SMALL PARCELS OF LAND NOT EMBRACED IN CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT. — Petitioner’s pleas to stop the execution of a judgment for desahucio against him is based on Commonwealth Act No. 538. Held: At the time Commonwealth Act No. 538 was approved, the City had no power to expropriate lands for resale. Republic Act No. 409 that empowered the City to expropriate did not make Commonwealth Act No. 538 applicable. And this lot of only 180 square meters does not properly come within the purview of the Government’s right to expropriate lands for resale to occupants.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


To stop the execution of a judgment for desahucio against him, Sixto Pañgilinan filed this petition for" certiorari, prohibition and injunction" alleging that proceedings had already been started by the City of Manila to expropriate and resell in small lots the whole of Nagtahan Estate that includes the parcel from which he was to be ejected. His plea was based on Commonwealth Act No. 538 providing that when the Government seeks to acquire any estate through purchase or expropriation proceedings all actions for ejectment against the tenants occupying said land shall be automatically suspended.

Undisputed facts are the following: On October 10, 1949 Crispulo Q. Manansala filed in the Manila municipal court a complaint to eject Sixto Pañgilinan from a lot in Sampaloc, Manila. Said court after hearing the parties gave judgment for plaintiff. Pañgilinan appealed to the court of first instance, wherein due to his failure to deposit the rents on time, execution of the judgment was ordered, in spite of his allegation that his failure was due to illness. He moved for reconsideration; but the motion was denied. Then he invoked the provisions regarding automatic suspension of ejectment proceedings whenever the Government starts negotiations for acquisition of landed estates. Again he failed. Hence he applied to this court for relief. We issued a preliminary injunction.

The case for the petitioner is built upon two major propositions, to wit: (a) The respondent judge abused his discretion in issuing the writ although his failure to deposit rents was due to illness; and (b) suspension of the proceedings should be decreed because all the requisites provided for in Commonwealth Act No. 538 in connection with Republic Act No. 409 had been complied with.

On the first point the record discloses that in the lower court Manansala disputed the veracity of such illness of petitioner, calling attention to the fact that the medical certificate was unverified. He also contended that the illness, even if true, could not have prevented the tenant from making deposits through others. The matter was debated in the trial court. Considering our pronouncements to the effect that execution is mandatory when the rents are not paid on time, 1 the duty of the court to order such execution being ministerial and imperative, 2 we cannot under the circumstances ascribe abuse of discretion to the respondent judge of Manila.

On the second point we are advised that the lot, containing about 180 square meters formerly belonged to the Nagtahan Estate of Rita Legarda Inc. from which Luis Gaddi obtained a contract of lease with option to purchase; that Gaddi transferred all his rights to the lot to Crispulo Manansala; that the latter exercising the option purchased the lot from Rita Legarda Inc. in a public document known as Contract of Sale No. 1156; that Gaddi had built two houses on the lot and sold one to Manansala and the other to Pañgilinan; that after becoming the purchaser of the lot, Manansala notified Pañgilinan to vacate and upon the latter’s refusal, started ejectment proceedings; that as far back as the year 1947 the City of Manila had initiated negotiations for the purchase of the Nagtahan Estate (containing about 43 hectares) for the purpose of reselling the same in smaller lots to the occupants thereof; that such negotiations failed, but in 1949 the Municipal Board of said city passed Resolution No. 73 series of 1949, authorizing the expropriation of the Nagtahan Estate, including the lot in question; that this resolution was approved by the Cabinet and the President of the Republic and that the City of Manila through its Mayor notified the owners of the land sought to be expropriated, of the Government’s intention to acquire the lands through expropriation proceedings.

Commonwealth Act No. 538 provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. When the Government seeks to acquire through purchase or expropriation proceedings lands, belonging to the estate of chaplaincy (capellanias) any action for ejectment against the tenants occupying said lands shall be automatically suspended, for such time as may be required by the expropriation proceedings or necessary negotiations for the purchase of the lands, in which later case, the period of suspension shall not exceed one year.

SEC. 2. For the purpose of this Act, the action by the Government shall be considered instituted from the date of filing for the complaint for expropriation with the proper court or from the time the party principally concerned of the intention of the Government to acquire his land, through any means herein stated."cralaw virtua1aw library

This is the root and basis of petitioner’s insistence on suspension. Supposing this Commonwealth Act No. 538 applies to expropriations by the City of Manila, 3 it is evident that the lot no longer forms part of the Nagtahan Estate, it having been sold to Manansala before the start of the expropriation proceedings. And the suspension may be invoked if this lot of 180 square meters, properly comes within the purview of the Government’s right to expropriate lands for resale to occupants. Now, as we have heretofore held that the Constitutional grant of such prerogative refers to landed estates and does not include small parcels of land, (Guido v. Rural Progress, 47 Off. Gaz., 1848; 84 Phil., 847; Commonwealth v. De Borja. 85 Phil., 51 and Rural Progress v. Guzman, 47 Off. Gaz., Supp. [12], 361; 87 Phil., 176) it follows that Manansala’s lot does not come either under Commonwealth Act No. 538 or under Republic Act No. 409 and consequently petitioner is not entitled to the Stoppage prescribed by the former legislative enactment.

Wherefore, this petition will have to be denied, and the preliminary injunction dissolved.

However, in the matter of petitioner’s building on the lot the attention of respondents must be invited to section 13 of Rule 39, which for convenience is quoted below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 13. How execution for the delivery or restitution of property enforced. — The officer must enforce an execution for the delivery or restitution of property by placing the plaintiff in possession of such property, and by levying the hereinafter provided upon so much of the property of the judgment debtor as will satisfy the amount of the costs, damages, rents, and profits included in the execution. However, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove the improvements made by the defendant or his agent on the property, except by special order of the court, which order may only issue upon petition of the plaintiff after due hearing and upon the defendant’s failure to remove the improvements within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petition denied, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Silos v. Court of Appeals (G. R. No. L-3749, June 23, 1950).

2. Galewsky v. De la Rama (45 Off. Gaz., 2033; 79 Phil., 583); Basilio v. Natividad (45 Off. Gaz., 2888; 80 Phil., 52).

3. At the time it was approved the city had no power to expropriate lands for resale. Republic Act No. 409 that empowered the city to expropriate did not make Commonwealth Act No. 538 applicable. Act No. 538 speaks of the "Government" which normally refers to "National Government."




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






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252