Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > January 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

012 Phil 555:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 5101. January 21, 1909. ]

TEODORO M. BEECH, Petitioner, v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, Judge of First Instance, ET AL., Respondents.

Rosado, Sanz & Opisso, for Petitioner.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for respondent J. McMicking.

A. S. Crossfield, and Bibiano Bañez, on their own behalf.

T. L. McGirr and F. P. Rodoreda, for the other Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. MOOT CASES. — A court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot cases and spend its time in deciding questions the resolution of which can not in any way affect the rights of the persons presenting them.

2. CERTIORARI, ORDER OF COURT; DEMURRER. — In response to an order to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue, a defendant presented a demurrer to the complaint. Held, That the document was improperly called a demurrer and that it was sufficient as an answer to the order to show cause.

3. CONTEMPT; JOINDER. — A proceeding for the punishment of a person for contempt can not be joined with an action in certiorari.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


This is an action of certiorari brought originally in this court. In answer to an order to that effect, the defendants have appeared and showed cause why the writ should not be issued and the question to be decided now is, whether an order should be made directing that the record be remitted to this court by the court below.

In the case of Teodoro M. Beech v. A. S. Crossfield Et. Al., 1 No. 4690, the decision of this court was filed and announced on the 10th day of December, 1908. This decision annulled a part of the judgment entered by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in the case numbered 5816 of that court between Teodoro M. Beech and Juana Jimenez and another. The part of the judgment thus annulled provided that the defendants, or either of them, might repurchase the real estate involved upon paying to the plaintiff, or into court, the sum of P6,000 and P50 per month, beginning with the month of June, 1907, up to the time of payment, and in case of such repurchase that the note of consolidation entered in the registry by the plaintiff should be annulled. On the 14th day of May, 1908, Juana Jimenez deposited in court in the said action of Beech v. Juana Jimenez, the amount of P6,600 in payment of the debt and interest according to the final judgment entered on the 31st day of March by said Court of First Instance, subject to the disposition of the plaintiff, and P70 in payment of the costs. It appeared that this amount of money had been tendered to the plaintiff for the repurchase of the property, which offer the plaintiff Beech had refused.

On the 16th day of December, 1908, and after the decision of this court had been announced in case No. 4690, the judge of the court below made an order, at the request of Juana Jimenez, directing the payment by the clerk of the court to Bibiano Bañez of P1,500, part of the money thus deposited, and to Juana Luis y Hernandez of P5,170, the balance of such sum. These payments were made by the clerk of the court pursuant to such order to the parties therein mentioned. No final judgment was entered in this court in case No. 4690 until the 22d day of December, 1908.

The plaintiff commenced this action of certiorari on the 17th of December, 1908, alleging that the defendant judge, in making the order for the payments aforesaid, exceeded his jurisdiction. This claim is based upon the fact that on the 16th day of November, 1908, this court, in case No. 4690, ad issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the court below from taking any further proceedings in said action No. 5816 until the further order of the court.

There are several questions presented by the plaintiff in this action. One is, whether an act otherwise within the jurisdiction of the court below falls outside of his jurisdiction when he has been restrained by injunction from performing it? Another is, whether Bibiano Bañez and Juana Luis y Hernandez were entitled to appear and take part in the proceedings in case No. 5816? A third is, whether the plaintiff was entitled to notice of the application made by those persons for the payment to them of the money deposited into court by Juana Jimenez? Another is, whether the money so deposited belonged to Juana Jimenez or belonged to these two persons from whom she alleged she had borrowed it?

Before undertaking to decide these or other questions presented by the case, it is necessary to consider that interest the plaintiff has in their resolution.

The question litigated in the court below in case No. 5816 was whether or not the defendant Juana Jimenez had the right to repurchase the property in question. The plaintiff Beech claimed that she had no such right, the time for the repurchase thereof having expired. The court held that she did have such right and that she might exercise it by paying the amount due for the repurchase before the 15th day of May, 1908. For the purpose of securing that right, she made the offer of repurchase, and this offer not being accepted by the plaintiff, she deposited the money in court. This money in no sense belonged to the plaintiff. He had a right to accept it, but on condition that he reconvey the property. If he did not see fit to accept it, he had no right thereto. It appears clearly from the terms of the notice-given to the plaintiff by the defendant Juana Jimenez at the time she made the deposit that she deposited it for the purpose of making the repurchase and not for the payment of rent which might be due for the use of the property. We, therefore, hold that the plaintiff had no claim or lien of any kind upon the money in question.

It was said, however, in the argument by the plaintiff that, if the money had remained there until final judgment had been entered in case No. 5816 in favor of the plaintiff Beech, he could have levied his execution, which could have been in part for the payment of money, upon this fund at the moment when it was turned over by the clerk to Juana Jimenez. This contention can not be sustained because it appears from the record that on the 14th day of December, 1908, and prior to the making of the order of payment of the 16th day of December, and prior to the time when the plaintiff had or could have secured any judgment against Juana Jimenez, she had assigned and transferred to Bibiano Bañez and Juana Luis y Hernandez all her interest in this fund. The reason for that assignment was the fact that she had borrowed the money from them. It thus appears that the plaintiff, on the 16th of December, when the order complained of was made, had no interest in this money and could acquire none. Whether it remained in court or was paid to Juana Jimenez or to other persons was a matter of indifference to him. That order did not, and could not in any way affect his rights and he was in no way prejudiced thereby. The decision of the questions presented by him upon the hearing in this case in this court, whether decided one way or the other, will be of no interest to him, except as they may settle some mooted points. That a court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot cases and spend its time in deciding questions the resolution of which can not in any way affect the rights of the person or persons presenting them is well settled.

It was suggested at the argument that some of the defendants in this case had made no proper answer to the order to show cause. We had directed that the defendants should appear and state their reasons why a writ of certiorari should not be granted. Some of them appeared and presented that they called a demurrer to the complaint and the plaintiff says that a demurrer in such cases is improper. That is true, but the document they presented was improperly called by them a demurrer. If they saw fit to answer the order to show cause by saying that they admitted all the facts stated in the complaint, but that even on such admission the plaintiff was not entitled to relief, they had a right to do so. That is, in effect, what they did. The document which they called a demurrer was, in effect, their answer to the order to show cause. If we had held that that answer was insufficient, we should have ordered a writ of certiorari to issue and should not have allowed them to withdraw their so-called demurrer and present another answer.

In the complaint in this case the plaintiff asks that the defendant judge and clerk he punished for contempt for violating the injunction above referred to. A proceeding for the punishment of a person for contempt can not be , joined with an action in certiorari.

We hold that the answers given by the defendants are sufficient and this case is dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Beech v. Jimenez and Crossfield, page 212, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





January-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4000 January 5, 1909 - ANDRES ELUMBARING v. HERMOGENES ELUMBARING

    012 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4001 January 5, 1909 - SILVESTRA LUBRICO v. LEONA ARBADO

    012 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4393 January 8, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    012 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 4648 January 8, 1909 - CLAUS SPRECKELS, ET AL. v. D. H. WARD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 4762 January 8, 1909 - ALBERTO LAGAHIT v. SIMEON NENGASCA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 4841 January 8, 1909 - JAMES F. MACLEOD v. PHILIPPINE PUBLISHING COMPANY

    012 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 5120 January 8, 1909 - TIMOTEO GONZALEZ v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    012 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 4680 January 9, 1909 - ROBERTO MORENO v. AGO CHI

    012 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4350 January 11, 1909 - MONICA CASON v. F. W. RICKARDS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4627 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO QUE-QUENCO

    012 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 4634 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. UY-KUE-BENG

    012 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 4089 January 12, 1909 - ARTURO PELAYO v. MARCELO LAURON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4604 January 12, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    012 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 4849 January 12, 1909 - TIMOTEO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 4596 January 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN FORTALEZA

    012 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4810 January 13, 1909 - VICTORIA GARCIA v. B. MONTAGUE

    012 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4495 January 14, 1909 - TY SUE, ET AL. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 5050 January 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO-SIACO

    012 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 4461 January 16, 1909 - MACARIO SAMSON v. VICENTE SALVILLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 3187 January 19, 1909 - MICHAEL SANDELIZ v. PAZ REYES

    012 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 3966 January 19, 1909 - JUAN LEANO I, ET AL. v. AGAPITO LEANO

    012 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 3988 January 19, 1909 - GUILLERMO YACAPIN v. JULIAN JIBERO

    012 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 4563 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GARINO SORIANO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

    012 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    012 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 4750 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO F. GUTIERREZ

    012 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 4766 January 19, 1909 - ANG QUIAN CIEG, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

    012 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5049 January 19, 1909 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4765 January 20, 1909 - ANG SENG QUEN, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 4291 January 21, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. CUSTODIO DAUDEN

    012 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4721 January 23, 1904

    RICARDO v. BASILIO MAJINAY

    012 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 4813 January 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO SIAMSICO

    012 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 3714 January 26, 1909 - ISABELO M. MONTANO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    012 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 3783 January 26, 1909 - DAMASO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

    012 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

    012 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 4715 January 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CHIA-TUA

    012 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4474 January 27, 1909 - BERNABE ALCERA v. SATURNINO NERY

    012 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 4706 January 27, 1909 - RAMON PAPA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    012 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 4816 January 27, 1909 - FRANCISCO Q. GONZALEZ v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    012 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4725 January 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 4832 January 28, 1909 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 3016 January 29, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 639