Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > January 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5129 January 30, 1953 - FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL. v. CONRADO ARAGON, ET AL.

092 Phil 578:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5129. January 30, 1953.]

FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL., plaintiffs. MIGUELA ARAGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONRADO ARAGON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Julio Siayngco for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTEMPT; EXECUTION OF SPECIAL JUDGMENTS; WHEN AN ACT MAY CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT AND AN OFFENSE UNDER THE PENAL CODE. — When, by virtue of a judgment or order rendered by a competent court in partition proceedings, a litigant has been placed in possession of real property, the act of the adverse party, who has been evicted therefrom, of reentering it and gathering fruits therefrom, it constitutes contempt. And there is no limit as to the time in which reentry or attempted reentry constitutes contempt. The fact that the same act may also constitute a violation of the Revised Penal Code does not necessarily take it out of the sanction of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


In civil case No. 578 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte entitled Francisco Aragon, Beatriz Aragon and Miguela Aragon, Plaintiffs, v. Obdulia Aragon, Conrado Aragon and Maximo Aragon, Defendants, which was an action for partition of real property owned in common by all of the parties, the plaintiff Miguela Aragon was by the judgment rendered in said case adjudged as her share, among other parcels, a portion of land described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A portion of the parcel under Tax No. 1426, situated at Kabang, Burauen, Leyte, bounded on the north by Beatriz Aragon; on the southeast, by Francisco Aragon; on the south, by Kaban River, and on the west, by Alfonso Maray. Area: 3.0257 Ha."cralaw virtua1aw library

Acting on the writ of execution subsequently issued in the case, the provincial sheriff delivered possession of the land above described to the said Miguela Aragon after ousting therefrom the defendant Conrado Aragon on December 4, and the defendant Maximo Aragon on December 18, 1950. On February 5, 1951, however, Miguela Aragon complained to the court that on or about January 6 of that year Conrado Aragon and Maximo Aragon reentered the land and executed acts of ownership and possession by gathering therefrom 800 coconuts valued at P106.40 in violation of section 3(h) of Rule 64, Rules of Court. Acting on this complaint, the court issued an order requiring the appearance of said Conrado Aragon and Maximo Aragon on a given date to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for disobeying a court order. But the same court, thru another judge, without taking evidence, subsequently dismissed the complaint, declaring that complainant’s remedy was to file a complaint for theft or robbery as the case may be. Contending that the said order is erroneous, complainant has appealed to this Court.

Section 3(h) of Rule 64 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 3. Contempt punished after charge and hearing. — After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for contempt:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(h) 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 disturb the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library

Commenting on this provision of the Rules, Chief Justice Moran, in his Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. II, 1952 edition, page 134, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Dispossession after execution. — Generally, any order or judgment of a court finally disposing of an action should be enforced by ordinary execution proceedings, except special judgments which should be executed by contempt proceedings in accordance with Rule 39, section 9. However, when, by virtue of a judgment or order rendered by a competent court, a litigant has been placed in possession of real property, the act of the adverse party, who has been evicted therefrom, of reentering or attempting to reenter into it, constitutes contempt. And there is no limit as to the time in which reentry or attempted reentry constitutes contempt. This rule applies when possession has been given by the officer in virtue of a writ issued in a land registration proceeding." (Italics supplied.)

The underlined portion of the above comment is based on the decision of this court in Azotes v. Blanco Et. Al., 44 Off. Gaz., 4881), which is analogous to the present case.

Coming squarely under the above-copied section of the Rules, the act complained of constitutes contempt which may be redressed as therein provided. The fact that the same act may also constitute a violation of the Revised Penal Code does not necessarily take it out of the sanction of said section. As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Re Chapman, 166 U. S., 661, 671, "indictable statutory offenses may be punished as such, while the offenders may likewise be subjected to punishment for the same acts as contempts, the two being diverso intuito and capable of standing together."cralaw virtua1aw library

The order appealed from is therefore revoked and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3773 January 2, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URBANO VIRAY, ET AL.

    092 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-4358 January 2, 1953 - JOSE SAMINIADA v. EPIFANIO MATA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-4531 January 10, 1953 - ANG SI HENG, ET AL. v. WELLINGTON DEP’T. STORE INC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-6225 January 10, 1953 - ARSENIO H. LACSON v. MARCIANO ROQUE, ET AL.

    092 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4008 January 15, 1953 - APOLONIA SANTIAGO v. ANGELA DIONISIO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-4377 January 23, 1953 - FERNANDO BAQUIAL v. FELIX AMIHAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-4871 January 26, 1953 - IN RE: ANG LAM v. HILARIO PEREGRINA

    092 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. L-5041 January 27, 1953 - BAY BOULEVARD SUBD., INC. v. FRANCISCO SYCIP, ET AL.

    092 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-5164 January 27, 1953 - CONRADO V. SINGSON, ET AL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. L-3683 January 28, 1953 - BANGON DU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. L-4588 January 28, 1953 - IN RE: MATEO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-5270 January 28, 1953 - PNB v. GLICERIO JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-4963 January 29, 1953 - MARIA USON v. MARIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-2708 & L-3355-60 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO M. ACIERTO

    092 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-3602 January 30, 1953 - WONG SIU TONG v. ALEJO AQUINO

    092 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-3813 January 30, 1953 - PAUKI MADALE, ET AL. v. PASEYANAN BAY SA RAYA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-4551 January 30, 1953 - CHAN KIM LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-4904 January 30, 1953 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION

    092 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-5042 January 30, 1953 - FELICIDAD AMBAT v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    092 Phil 567

  • G.R. Nos. L-5059-60 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-5121 January 30, 1953 - J. P. HEILBRONN CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    092 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-5129 January 30, 1953 - FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL. v. CONRADO ARAGON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-5159 January 30, 1953 - CANAS PLANTATION CO. v. BUREAU OF FORESTRY

    092 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-5346 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO AGUILANDO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-5360 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO DIMAPILIS

    092 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. L-5527 January 30, 1953 - SALVADOR FERNANDEZ v. PABLO GARCIA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-5654 January 30, 1953 - LUIS SAN JUAN v. SANTOS CALDERON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-4347 January 31, 1953 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. DOMINADOR BARILEA

    092 Phil 600