Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18003. September 29, 1962. ]

ROSARIO GREY VDA. DE ALBAR and JOSE M. GREY, Petitioners, v. JOSEFA FABIE DE CARANDANG and THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

Montenegro, Mandayag, Viola & Hernandez, for Petitioners.

Ambrosio Padilla and Santiago P. Blanco for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF APPEALS; AUXILIARY WRITS; CRITERION IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT WRITS ARE IN AID OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION. — Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and other auxiliary writs are in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals if said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final decision that might be rendered in the principal case by the court against which the writ is sought.

2. JUDGMENTS; EXECUTION; WHEN STAY OF EXECUTION PERMISSIBLE. — Although the rule is that a decision, once executory, is beyond amendment, that the prevailing party is entitled to its execution as a matter of right, and that the writ of execution to be issued must conform with the decision (Buenaventura v. Garcia, 78 Phil., 759), a stay of execution may be granted if necessary to accomplish the aims of justice, as for instance where there has been a change in the situation of the parties which makes such execution inequitable (Chua Lee v. Mapa, 51 Phil. 624; Li Kim Tho v. Sanchez, 82 Phil., 776).


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Appeal taken by Rosario Grey Vda. de Albar and Jose M. Grey from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 28196-R — an original action for certiorari filed by respondent Josefa Fabie de Carandang.

In her will the deceased Doña Rosario Fabie y Grey bequeathed the naked ownership of a parcel of land situated at Ongpin St., Manila, and of the building and other improvements existing thereon, to petitioners, and the usufruct thereof to respondent for life. Because the improvements were destroyed during the battle for the liberation of the City of Manila, the Philippine War Damage Commission paid petitioners a certain sum of money as war damage. It was respondent, however, who paid the real estate taxes due on the land for the years 1945 to 1954.

On October 2, 1952, petitioners commenced Civil Case No. 17674 in the Court of First Instance of Manila to limit respondent’s usufruct to the legal interest on the value of the land. After due trial the court rendered judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En virtud de todo lo cual, el Juzgado promulga decisión a favor de la demandada usufructuaria, declarando:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Que su usufructo vitalicio contin
Top of Page