Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45531. April 19, 1939. ]

FRED OMNAS and JOSE TANDINGAN GADIL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PABLO S. RIVERA, Judge of First Instance of Abra, and EULALIA BELLO, Respondents-Appellees.

Carmelo V. del Rosario for Appellants.

Prospero Sanidad for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. WRIT OF POSSESSION; WRIT OF EXECUTION; JURISDICTION. — The writ of possession being a complement of the writ of execution, a judge with jurisdiction to issue the latter also has jurisdiction to issue the former, unless in the interval between the judicial sale and the issuance of the writ of possession, the judgment debtor had ceased to be the owner of the subject-matter of the sale.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


About March 14, 1931, Eulalia Bello obtained a judgment for P1,800 against Jose Tandingan Gadil in Civil Case No. 326 of the Court of First Instance of Abra. As Gadil was unable to pay the amount of the judgment, the provincial sheriff sold at public auction a parcel of land which appeared to be Gadil’s property, the same having been adjudicated to the said plaintiff Eulalia Bello as the highest bidder. On December 24, 1932, the said sheriff issued the certificate of sale in favor of Eulalia Bello. However, for reasons not disclosed by the record, the purchaser did not take possession of the land purchased by her.

On October 15, 1935, Eulalia Bello filed a motion asking that the court issue a writ of possession in her favor, and the respondent judge, Honorable Pablo S. Rivera, granted the motion by putting at the bottom thereof on January 8, 1936, under his signature the words "Motion granted." The writ of possession was issued on January 15, 1936, complied with on March 29, 1936, and returned on April 16th of the same year with the necessary proceedings.

As a result of the issuance of said writ of possession, Fred Omnas and Jose Tandingan Gadil filed an original petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals against Judge Pablo S. Rivera of the Court of First Instance of Abra and Eulalia Bello.

After proper proceedings, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision denying the petition, with the costs to the petitioners.

The only question for decision is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Court of First Instance of Abra had jurisdiction to issue the writ of possession in favor of a purchaser at a public sale by virtue of the execution of a judgment in an ordinary action for the recovery of a sum of money.

In Orestes Y. Olarte v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (G. R. No. 45330, Sept. 30, 1937), this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is plain that the power to issue a writ of assistance or of possession is derived from the jurisdiction of the court to enforce its decree or judgment, and when such judgment or decree is no longer enforceable, the court lacks authority to issue the writ. In the instant case, the judgment of foreclosure was rendered on November 16, 1925, and such judgment could be enforced only within five y ears after its rendition. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 443; Compañia General de Tabacos v. Martinez, 17 Phil., 160; Paterno v. Aguila, 22 Phil., 427.) Manifestly, therefore, the respondent judge had no power to issue his order of March 21, 1936."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the present case the decision was rendered on March 14, 1931, and must have become final and been entered thirty days thereafter (section 145 of Act No. 190; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. municipality of Unisan, 44 Phil., 866; Palomata v. Villareal, 40 Phil., 641; Dy Cay v. Crossfield and O’Brien, 38 Phil., 521), that is, on April 14, 1931, from which last date commenced to run the period of five
Top of Page