Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

095 Phil 11:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6522. May 24, 1954.]

LUIS B. UVERO, GREGORIA U. ORIAS, HENRICO M. UVERO, TITA U. DINERO, VIRGINIA U. PORNILLOS, JUVENAL B. UVERO, and ELEUTERIO B. UVERO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ROSALIO AZADA, GUILLERMO AZADA, and APRONIANO AZADA, Respondents.

Felipe, Karingal & Felipe, for Petitioners.

Tabora & Rodriguez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENTS; WHEN EXECUTORY MAY BE STAYED. — Where the petition for the dissolution of a writ of execution was filed when the trial court, because of the perfection of the appeal, had already lost its jurisdiction over the case, the court had no more authority to grant the petition. Stay of execution may be ordered only as long as the court retains its jurisdiction over the case.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


On September 7, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment in civil case No. 1424, entitled Emiliana Beltrano de Uvero Et. Al., v. Rosalio Azada Et. Al., for recovery of real property, declaring plaintiffs owners of the land described in the reamended complaint and ordering defendants to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiffs and to pay damages and costs.

Defendants gave notice of appeal on October 3 and filed their record on appeal seven days later. Pending approval of said record, plaintiffs filed a motion for immediate execution, which the court granted in its order of October 15, copy of which was received by defendants on October 18. The order says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing that the defendants in this case have no property, and according to the plaintiffs, are insolvent, upon motion of the plaintiffs, and upon filing of a bond in the sum of P2,000, let a writ of execution be issued against the defendants, which, however, may be suspended upon the filing of a supersedeas bond in the same amount."cralaw virtua1aw library

Implementing the order, the clerk of court issued the corresponding writ of execution on October 30 after plaintiffs had filed the required bond, and the writ was served by the sheriff on defendants on November 6.

On the following day (November 7) defendants filed an urgent motion, stating that they had filed a supersedeas bond of P2,000 on the day before and praying "that the writ of execution be dissolved and the premises be given back to the defendants." At that time the court had already lost its jurisdiction over the case, the appeal having been perfected 4 days before with the approval of the record on appeal and the appeal bond on November 3. (Section 9, Rule 41.) The court denied the motion, however, on the ground that section 2 of Rule 39 authorizes a stay of execution upon the filing of a supersedeas bond but not "the dissolution of an execution which had already been served upon the appellant." Taken to the Court of Appeals on a petition for a writ of certiorari, this ruling was reversed and the respondent Judge was ordered to dissolve the execution which he had previously authorized. From this order plaintiffs have appealed to this Court by certiorari.

The appeal appears to be well taken.

There is no question that execution issued on the authority of section 2 of Rule 39, may, as therein also authorized, be stayed upon the approval by the court of sufficient supersedeas bond. But, as the respondent Court of Appeals itself says, the stay may be ordered "as long as the court retains its jurisdiction over the case." Such, however, is not the situation here, where the petition for the dissolution of the writ of execution was filed when the trial court, because of the perfection of the appeal, had already lost its jurisdiction over the case and had therefore no more authority to grant the petition.

It is true that section 9 of Rule 41 also provides that the trial court, notwithstanding the appeal, retains the authority "to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal." But as was said in the case of Vda. de Syquia v. Judge of First Instance Et. Al., 60 Phil., 186, "The execution of a judgment is a proceeding affecting the rights of the parties, which are the subject matter thereof, and from which appeal is taken, and its purpose is not to protect and preserve the subject matter of the litigation. Therefore, the perfecting of an appeal taken from said judgment deprives the trial court of its jurisdiction over said judgment and said jurisdiction is transferred to the appellate court, and the trial court cannot modify or revoke any order of execution of the said judgment after the appeal taken therefrom is perfected." It appears in that case that the trial court, pending approval of the bill of exceptions, had ordered execution against the defeated party unless a bond was filed within a certain period, but, on a motion for reconsideration and after approval of the bill of exceptions, revoked the order on the ground that there was no legal justification for its issuance. On a petition for certiorari this Court annulled the order revoking the execution, holding that the trial court had acted without jurisdiction because the appeal had already been perfected.

To the same effect is the ruling laid down in the case of Burke Et. Al., v. Devera, 1 46 Off. Gaz., No. 10, p. 4936. In that case judgment was rendered requiring defendants to surrender possession of a building to plaintiffs, but after appeal had been perfected the trial court issued an order allowing defendant to continue occupying a portion of the building. This Court held the order void. The syllabus says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A modifying order allowing defendant to occupy the portion of the building he is actually holding which was not for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties is conspicuously null and void; having been entered after the records on appeal had been approved and, accordingly, after the Court of First Instance had lost jurisdiction over the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

Our attention has been called to the case of Naredo v. Judge Yatco, 2 45 Off. Gaz., No. 8, p. 3390, where this Court upheld an order of execution issued by the trial judge after approval of the record on appeal. But as this Court has taken pains to point out in that case, the order for the issuance of the writ was merely an implementation of a previous order for the issuance of execution which was promulgated before the perfection of the appeal so that it could be stated that the approval of the record on appeal by the trial judge was subordinated to the said previous order of execution.

To refute respondent’s contention that they were not given a reasonable time to file a supersedeas bond, it is sufficient to quote the following from the order of the trial judge.

". . . It is not denied that before the issuance and service of the writ of execution, Atty. Ramon Felipe, Jr. had inquired from counsel for the defendants whether they were going to file a supersedeas bond. Between receipt of the order authorizing the issuance of the writ of execution by Atty. Perfecto Tabora for the defendants on October 18, 1951, to the service of the writ of execution upon the defendants on November 6, 1951, 19 days had elapsed. Sufficient time, therefore, had elapsed before the writ of execution was served upon the defendants to enable them to file a supersedeas bond. Not until, however, was the writ of execution served upon them did they file the supersedeas bond to stay execution."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the assumption that the trial court had, with the perfection of the appeal, already lost its jurisdiction to dissolve the writ of execution previously issued, respondents seek to justify the order herein appealed from as an exercise by the Court of Appeals of a power incident to its supervisory and appellate jurisdiction. But it is obvious that the exercise of any such incidental power should be invoked in the main case, which has already been elevated to the Court of Appeals, and not in the separate case of certiorari, where the only issue involved was whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to dissolve the execution, an issue which has to be resolved in the negative for the reason that the trial court had no power to grant such a motion after it had already lost jurisdiction over the case.

The order of the Court of Appeals requiring the trial judge to dissolve the order of execution when the said judge had already lost jurisdiction over the case being illegal and improper, the same must be as it is hereby revoked, with costs against the respondents other than the Court of Appeals.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1 83 Phil., 382 and 88 Phil., 762.

2. 80 Phil. 220.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205