Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-20048. March 2, 1923. ]

NICOMEDES DE LOS SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Honorable EMILIO MAPA ET AL., Respondents.

Ynocencio Payumo for Petitioner.

Tiburcio Ind. Villacorte for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; INJUNCTION; EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. — In an action pending in a court of first instance, the justice of the peace of the capital, acting in the place of the judge of first instance, who was absent, issued a writ of injunction upon the filing of a proper bond. Later on, the judge of the said court of first instance, at the instance of the party against whom the injunction had been issued, set aside the writ of injunction without any bond having been given for the purpose. Held: That the facts stated are not sufficient for determining whether the judge exceeded his jurisdiction or not, and a complaint for certiorari containing no allegation of any more facts than these, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


In this proceeding the petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued, directing the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to transmit to this court the record of civil case No. 2770 of that court, together with the evidence therein introduced, consisting of certificate of title No. 469, and a certified copy of its judgment and that of this court rendered in civil case No. 1829 and of the claim of Lorenza Veneracion; that a preliminary injunction be issued ex parte enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the land described in the notice of sale, Exhibit D of the petitioner, and that after a hearing of the case, judgment be rendered declaring the orders of June 28, 1922, and August 10th of the same year null and void and to make the preliminary injunction applied for absolute.

By a resolution of December 16, 1922, this court denied this petition, but upon motion for a reconsideration filed by the petitioner, this court under date of January 11, 1923, ordered the respondents to be required to demur to, or answer, the complaint of the petitioner within ten days from notice thereof.

In compliance with that last order, the respondents filed a demurrer on the ground that the facts alleged in the petition were without legal ground and did not constitute a cause of action.

In a motion filed February 1, 1923, to which the respondents presented a reply on the 10th of said month, the petitioner prays that this demurrer be not considered and the respondents be declared in default for not having given him notice of the hearing of the demurrer, invoking Rule 40 of the Rules of this Court. But the fact is that by a resolution of this court of January 26, 1923, said demurrer was set for hearing on February 5, 1923, and nothing appears setting, or tending to set, aside said resolution which ignored the notice alluded to by the petitioner. The point is, therefore, already decided and disposed of by a final resolution. The petitioner’s motion is denied.

The facts alleged by the petitioner in his complaint are: That through a valid purchase made in the year 1919, he became the owner of an undivided seven-eleventh part of the land registered under certificate of title No. 469 of the registry of lands of Nueva Ecija, and Lorenza Veneracion owned an undivided one-eleventh part of said property, having purchased the same from Jose Castañeda who, in turn, had acquired it by purchase from the original coparcener, owner of said undivided portion, Juan Medina 2.
Top of Page