Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > January 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20294 January 30, 1965 - FILOMENA SALAS v. FLORA QUINGA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20294. January 30, 1965.]

FILOMENA SALAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FLORA QUINGA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nicolas P. Nonato for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Laurea, Laurea & Associates, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. RECEIVERSHIP; JUDGMENT AGAINST RECEIVER APPLIES EQUALLY TO PERSON WHO REPLACED RECEIVER IN COLLECTION OF PRODUCE OF LAND UNDER RECEIVERSHIP. — The decree of the appellate court to deliver the material possession of a parcel of land as well as "all the funds which the receiver may have in his hands" applies to a person who replaced the receiver as well, because of an execution pending appeal, as if she were the receiver proper.

2. EXECUTION; EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT EXECUTED PENDING APPEAL; NO NECESSITY OF SPECIFYING RESTITUTION. — Where judgment had been executed pending its appeal, there is no need of specifying in a judgment of reversal that there should be restitution of the land involved therein and of its products, because such restoration is expressly provided for in Rule 39, section 5, of the Rules of Court. Said rule should apply in the absence of any contrary disposition in the final judgment of the appellate court.

3. ID.; ID.; ADMINISTRATRIX PERSONALLY ANSWERABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO HEIRS WHERE JUDGMENT REVERSED. — When a judgment ordering distribution of a parcel of land and its products to the heirs has been appealed but its execution pending appeal has been obtained, it is incumbent upon the administratrix to reserve the land and its products from distribution until final judgment is rendered, and she is personally liable for her failure to do so, apart from the obligation of the heirs themselves not to profit from what is not theirs, in case the executed judgment is subsequently reversed by the appellate court.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This direct appeal was interposed by Flora Quinga against an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (in its Civil Case No. 1138), dated June 26, 1962, requiring her to restore to Filomena Salas the products of a parcel of land that had been delivered to her pending appeal against a judgment of the same court in favor of Quinga but which was later reversed by final judgment of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 10288-R. The reversal was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in case G.R. No. L-14961.

Originally, the appellee, Filomena Salas, had filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an action against Flora Quinga, in the latter’s capacity as Administratrix of the estate of Ceferino Datoon. The complaint averred plaintiff’s ownership of a parcel of land (Lot 7741 of the Pototan Cadastre), covered by T.C.T. No. 14841, allegedly mortgaged by Salas to the late Datoon (in the form of a sale a retro) in order to secure a debt to the latter, and sought reconveyance thereof upon payment of the P100.00 balance of the indebtedness, which plaintiff consigned in court. Defendant pleaded in answer that Salas had conveyed title to Datoon; that the latter had been in possession of the land since 1934, as owner, thereof; and that plaintiff’s possession was that of a mere tenant of defendant administratrix. The latter also counterclaimed for the landlord’s share of the produce of the lot, at the rate of 20 bultos worth P500.00 per annum. At defendant’s instance a receiver was appointed by the court.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

After trial, the Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, and ordered the plaintiff and/or the receiver to deliver possession to the defendant Quinga. It also sentenced Filomena Salas to pay damages at the rate of P400.00 per agricultural year until that of 1948-1949; P300.00 for the ensuing year 1949-1950; and P240.00 for the year after that. Salas appealed the judgment, but upon motion the defendant Quinga, in 1951, obtained execution pending appeal (Rec. on App., p. 45), and the land was turned over to her.

In 1958, the Court of Appeals, as noted at the start of this opinion, reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and ordered Flora Quinga to execute a deed of reconveyance of the disputed lot to plaintiff Filomena Salas, upon withdrawal of the P100 previously consigned in court by the latter; and declared that —

"immediately after the execution of said deed, it is the duty of the appellee and/or receiver to turn over the material possession of the lot in question to the plaintiff-appellant, to whom shall also be delivered all the funds which the receiver may have in his hands less his compensation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Quinga resorted to the Supreme Court, but in 1961 the latter affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The decision became final, and the records were remanded to the court of origin. The corresponding writ of execution having been issued at the behest of Salas, the Sheriff delivered possession of the lot to the prevailing party; and after various incidents and pleadings Flora Quinga finally executed the deed of reconveyance, as ordered, in favor of Salas on March 24, 1962. However, Quinga resisted the order to turn over the products of the land, claiming that the decision of the Court of Appeals had made no mention thereof. The Court of First Instance, on June 26, 1962, overruled her objections, and on July 17, 1962 denied her motion to reconsider. Thereupon, Flora Quinga appealed once more to the Supreme Court, reiterating her arguments in the court below.chanrobles.com:cralaw:nad

We find no merit in the appeal.

The appellant Quinga having obtained in 1951 a writ of execution pending appeal, and thus taken possession of the land in dispute, she thereby replaced the receiver for all legal purposes in the collection of its produce. In equity and justice, therefore, the decree of the Court of Appeals to deliver to the winning party (appellee Filomena Salas) the material possession of the land as well as "all the funds which the receiver may have in his hands" applies to her (Quinga) as well, as if she were the receiver proper.

The Court of Appeals had no need of specifying in the judgment of reversal that there should be restitution of the land and of its products. Such restoration is expressly provided for in Rule 39, section 5, of the Rules of Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment — Where the judgment executed is reversed totally or partially on appeal, the trial court, on motion, after the case is remanded to it, may issue such orders of restitution as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances."cralaw virtua1aw library

and the rule should apply in the absence of any contrary disposition in the final judgment of the appellate courts.

Under the aforesaid judgment, appellant Quinga should have reconveyed the land to appellee Salas as soon as the latter tendered the balance of the indebtedness. Had Quinga done so, Salas would have remained in possession; she would not have been turned out in 1951, as she was, by the premature execution; and she would have received the crops of the land thereafter. It is but just, therefore, that Quinga should be required to account for the products that she was able to receive in the place of appellee Salas.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

It is no defense that, prior to the finality of the judgment of the appellate court, the land and its products had been already distributed among the heirs of the late Ceferino Datoon. His administratrix, appellant herein, personally knew of the claim of appellee Salas; she also knew, and was bound to know, that the judgment of the Court of First Instance dismissing the complaint had been appealed, and could be reversed. It was, therefore, incumbent upon her to reserve the land and its products from distribution among the heirs of Datoon until final judgment was rendered, and she is personally answerable for her failure to do so, apart from the obligation of the heirs themselves not to profit from what is not theirs.

WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are affirmed, and the records ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings consonant with this decision. Costs against appellant Flora Quinga.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.




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






January-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12752 January 30, 1965 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BINALBAGAN ESTATE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16392 January 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16463 January 30, 1965 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HERMOGENES HIPOLITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16485 January 30, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-16590 January 30, 1965 - ROBERTO LAPERAL v. WILLIAM P. ROGERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17171 January 30, 1965 - FERNANDO D. GUEVARA v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-17641 January 30, 1965 - REGISTER OF DEEDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17996 January 30, 1965 - PHIL. TRANS. AND GEN. WORKERS ORG. v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18056 January 30, 1965 - ASSOCIATED REALTY DEV. CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18337 January 30, 1965 - CHUA CHE v. PHIL. PATENT OFF., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18831 January 30, 1965 - CATALINA CAYETANO v. OSMUNDO CEGUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19073 January 30, 1965 - HOMOBONO H. GONZALES v. FELIPE JIMENEZ, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19118 January 30, 1965 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19309 January 30, 1965 - VICENTE SAN BUENAVENTURA v. MUN. OF SAN JOSE, CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19470 January 30, 1965 - GONZALO P. NAVA v. COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19488 January 30, 1965 - CITY OF DAVAO v. DEPT. OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19843 January 30, 1965 - NAT. POWER CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19912 January 30, 1965 - AURELIA ABO, ET AL. v. PHILAME (KG) EMP. & WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20034 January 30, 1965 - ISABELO ASTRAQUILLO, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20078 January 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ORNALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20166 January 30, 1965 - VICTORIA HARDWARE & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20238 January 30, 1965 - DAMASO P. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20294 January 30, 1965 - FILOMENA SALAS v. FLORA QUINGA

  • G.R. No. L-20393 January 30, 1965 - CITY OF CEBU v. EMILIO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21735 January 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. L-22248 January 30, 1965 - PATERNO JAVIER v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22765 January 30, 1965 - RECAREDO B. CASTILLO, ET AL. v. PROV’L. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SURIGAO DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23449 January 30, 1965 - RAFAEL L. DIZON v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12752 January 30, 1965 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BINALBAGAN ESTATE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19118 January 30, 1965 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO.