SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18236 January 31, 1964

ANGEL ESLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DOMINGO ELLAMA and FELOMINO DE LA CRUZ, defendants,
DOMINGO ELLAMA, Defendant-Appellee.

Gellada, Miraso and Associates for plaintiff-appellant.
Serafin L. Abogado for defendant-appellee.

LABRADOR, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

This is an appeal directly prosecuted to this Court from an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo dated December 9, 1960, issued in its Civil Case No. 4859 entitled "Esler vs. Ellama and De la Cruz", directing the plaintiff to return the parcel of land subject of an action for unlawful detainer appealed to the Court of First Instance from a Justice of the Peace Court, but reserving to plaintiff the right to bring the corresponding action of detainer in the Court of Agrarian Relations.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On June 26, 1957 plaintiff filed an action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Igbaras, Iloilo, alleging that plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land containing an area of more than 8.7 hectares; that in September, 1950 he delivered one hectare thereof to defendant under a verbal agreement whereby defendant undertook to deliver a one third share of the produce as yearly rental, and that defendant gave the agreed rentals yearly until 1957, but thereafter refused to abide by the contract. He prayed that defendant vacate the land, return possession thereof to plaintiff and damages and costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The defendant answered the complaint denying the material allegations, alleging that the land belonged to State, and praying that plaintiff pay him damages molesting him with the case. The Justice of the Peace Court after trial ordered defendant to vacate the premises and pay plaintiff P5.00 a month from January, 1951 to September, 1957 and to pay the costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The defendant having appealed from the judgment of Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance, in the latter court plaintiff moved for execution pending appeal. The judge granted the motion and issued an execution. This order is dated March 22, 1958. But on August 20, 1960, the court itself revoked the order of execution ordered the dismissal of the action on the ground that under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1199, known as Agricultural Tenancy Act, the Court of Agrarian Relation has jurisdiction of the suit. The defendant sought to considering the order praying that instead, the judgment of the justice of the peace court be revoked, as well as the order for its execution, and that plaintiff be ordered to turn the land with P520 as damages. After various petitions and countermotions, the court issued the order December 9, 1960. A motion to reconsider the order denied, hence this appeal by plaintiff-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The gist of the appeal is that since the order for dismissal of the case was issued on August 20, 1960, and dismissal had become final, the court could no longer issue its order of December 9, 1960 directing the return of the property. The argument while apparently correct would be productive of clear injustice. As a matter principle courts should be authorized, as in this case any time to order the return of property erroneously ordered to be delivered to one party, if the order was to have been issued without jurisdiction. Authority for the return of the property is expressed under the provision of Section 5 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, which reads as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

Sec. 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. - Where the judgment executed is reversed totally or partially on appeal, the trial, on motion, after the case is remanded to it, may issue such orders of restitution as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the appeal should be, as it is hereby, dismissed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.