Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > October 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4665 October 17, 1952 - ROBUSTIANO CARAGAO, ET AL. v. HON. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

092 Phil 121:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4665. October 17, 1952.]

ROBUSTIANO CARAGAO, GORGONIA JAYME, ISABEL GARCIA HERNANDEZ and her husband BARTOLOME HERNANDEZ, AUGUSTO, SOFRONIO, ENCARNACION, ROSALINA, JUAN, ANTONIO, CARMELITA and ARSENIO, these last eight surnamed MACALALAG, Petitioners, v. HON. CIRILO C. MACEREN, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, and G. P. SEBELLINO, judicial administrator of the Intestate of Jose Caragao, Respondents.

Jose P. Laurel and Arsenio Suazo, for Petitioners.

Alex Albert, Margarito G. Anana and Proculo B. Fuentes for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; WHERE EXECUTION HAS BEEN STAYED BY JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S FILING A SUPERSEDEAS BOND. — Execution pending appeal may issue only "upon good reasons stated in the order" of the trial court. The grounds for the granting of such execution must be good grounds. (Aguiles v. Barrios, 72 Phil., 285.) It follows that when the trial court has already granted a stay of execution, upon the judgment debtor’s filing a supersedeas bond, the circumstances justifying execution in spite of the supersedeas bond must be paramount; they should outweigh the security offered by the supersedeas bond. In this last case, only compelling reasons of urgency or justice can justify the execution. (Ibid.)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — The "good reason" stated in the order subject of this proceeding is "the better preservation and protection of the property." But we find from the record that the properties are three parcels of land. And we are at a loss to understand how and why they could be better preserved if in the hands of the administrator of an intestate. Besides, the judgment appealed from shows that the lands are in the hands of the judgment debtors, who already have titles thereto, and as there is nothing to indicate that they were acquired in bad faith, the presumption arises that the judgment debtors are possessors in good faith. It seems, therefore, that the execution of the judgment, after the giving of the supersedeas bond, can not be justified, there being no urgent or compelling reasons for granting the same. We, therefore, hold that the execution pending appeal was granted with grave abuse of discretion.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is a special action of certiorari to annul and set aside an order for immediate execution issued on March 3, 1951, by the Honorable Cirilo Maceren, judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, in Civil Case No. 288 of that court entitled G. P. Sebellino, as Administrator of the Estate of Jose Caragao v. Robustiano Caragao, Et. Al. In the judgment rendered after trial the court found that petitioner herein Robustiano Caragao had secured the transfer to himself of three parcels of land, registered in the name of the intestate Jose Caragao under certificates of title Nos. 331, 608, and 2715, which he sold to his co-petitioners in this proceeding, the first to Isabel Garcia and Bartolome Hernandez, the second to Josefa Caragao, and the third to Gorgonia Jayme. As a result of the conveyances the lands, according to the decision, are now registered in the names of the purchasers under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 206, 207, and 208. The court, however, found that the intestate had left a daughter by the name of Laureana Caragao by his first wife named Catalina Baligya, and it, therefore, ordered the cancellation of the new transfer certificates of title in the names of the petitioners, and the issuance of new ones in lieu thereof in the name of Jose Caragao, deceased, and that defendants vacate the lands and pay Jose Caragao’s share in the products thereof in the amount of P6,000. (Annex A.)

The judgment was rendered on December 28, 1950, and on January 6, 1951, the plaintiff moved for the immediate execution of the judgment (Annex B). Opposition to the motion was registered by the defendants (Annex C). On February 3, 1951, the court granted the motion for immediate execution, but upon motion for reconsideration, it set aside its first order by another dated February 10, 1951, which, in part, reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . It appearing that the plaintiff offers no objection to the filing of the supersedeas bond to answer for damages, the order of the court dated February 3, 1951, is hereby set aside and defendants are ordered to file a bond of P6,000 to answer for damages.

The defendants seem to have filed the bond, but opposition to this was registered by the plaintiff on the ground that it was insufficient, and the latter thereupon filed a counterbond for P10,000. Subsequently, the plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration dated February 20, 1951, praying that the original order for the execution of the judgment be reinstated. On March 2, 1951, the court set aside its order of February 10, 1951, and directed anew the issuance of an execution, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . It having been shown that the property would be properly taken care of and administered by the plaintiff herein for the better preservation and protection of same and inasmuch as the issuance of a writ of execution having been determined in its order of February 3, 1951, the order of this court dated February 10, 1951, is hereby set aside, and let execution issue in this case upon filing by the plaintiff of a bond in the total sum of P8,000, and an additional bond of P1,000 to be filed by the plaintiff G. P. Sebellino as embodied in the order of this court of February 3, 1951.

It is against this order that the present action is filed, petitioners contending that after the filing of the supersedeas bond, the execution of the judgment could not be justified by the reason expressed in the order, i.e., that the property could be better preserved or protected in the possession of the plaintiff.

The general rule is that the execution of a judgment is stayed by the perfection of an appeal. While provisions are inserted in the Rules to forestall cases in which an executed judgment is reversed on appeal, the execution of the judgment is the exception, not the rule. And so execution may issue only "upon good reasons stated in the order." The grounds for the granting of the execution must be good grounds. (Aguilos v. Barrios, Et Al., 72 Phil., 285.) It follows that when the court has already granted a stay of execution, upon the adverse party’s filing a supersedeas bond, the circumstances justifying execution in spite of the supersedeas bond must be paramount; they should outweigh the security offered by the supersedeas bond. In this last case, only compelling reasons of urgency or justice can justify the execution. (Ibid.) .

The "good reason" stated in the order subject of this proceeding is "the better preservation and protection of the property." But we find from the record that the properties are three parcels of land. And we are at a loss to understand how and why they could be better preserved if in the hands of the administrator. Besides, the judgment shows that the lands are in the hands of the petitioners, who already have titles thereto, and as there is nothing to indicate that they were acquired in bad faith, the presumption arises that the purchasers are possessors in good faith. It seems, therefore, that the execution of the judgment, after the giving of the supersedeas bond, can not be justified, there being no urgent or compelling reasons for granting the same. We, therefore, hold that the execution was granted with grave abuse of discretion.

The petition is, therefore, granted, and the order of the respondent judge of March 2, 1951, is set aside, and that of February 10, 1951, revived. With costs against the respondents.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4364 October 7, 1952 - FELIPE B. PAGKANLUÑGAN v. HON. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, ET AL.

    092 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3645 October 8, 1952 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA, ET AL. v. RURAL PROGRESS ADM.

    092 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-4725 October 15, 1952 - IN RE: YU LO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-3784 October 17, 1952 - ERNEST BERG v. MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

    092 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-4665 October 17, 1952 - ROBUSTIANO CARAGAO, ET AL. v. HON. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-4549 October 22, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CAPISTRANO

    092 Phil 125

  • Adm. Case No. 126 October 24, 1952 - IN RE: ATTY. TRANQUILINO ROVERO

    092 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4397 October 24, 1952 - IN RE: DELFIN LIMTAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-4614 October 24, 1952 - JUAN DELIVA v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-5138 October 24, 1952 - GERONIMO P. VIBAL v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-5424 October 24, 1952 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

    092 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3751 October 25, 1952 - VISAYAN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. MARIANO R. FLORES, ET AL.

    092 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-4032 October 25, 1952 - IN RE: CHUA PIENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-4603 October 25, 1952 - IN RE: MANUEL SINGSON v. EMILIA FLORENTINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-4992 October 27, 1952 - ALFREDO MIRANDA v. DAVID GUANZON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-5221 October 27, 1952 - BENITO R. FERRER v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3970 October 29, 1952 - GURBAX SINGH PABLA & CO., ET AL. v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    092 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-4441 October 29, 1952 - ROSA BRACAMONTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-4625 October 29, 1952 - EUGENIO EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. BRIGIDA SORIANO

    092 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-4835 October 29, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES GARCIA

    092 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-5188 October 29, 1952 - ALICIA S. GONZALES v. ASIA LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    092 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-5187 October 29, 1952 - MORA O. SANNA v. MORA O. AJIRIA

    092 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-5298 October 29, 1952 - PNB v. PEDRO C. RELATIVO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5628 October 29, 1952 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EL TRIBUNAL INDUSTRIAL

    092 Phil 208

  • C.A. No. 6119-R October 29, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ISAAC

    092 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-4466 October 30, 1952 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    092 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-4630 October 30, 1952 - NICOMEDES SULLER v. PRIMITIVO S. PEREZ

    092 Phil 216