MAXIMO VERGARA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. GETULIO BRUCELA, ETC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, having on motion of the
defendants, dismissed the amended complaint herein, upon the ground of
failure to state a cause of action, plaintiffs appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which, subsequently, certified the records to this Court,
pursuant to the provisions of section 17(6) of Republic Act No. 296.

Plaintiffs herein, namely, Maximo Vergara, Gavino Aguilar and Mamerto
Portezo, were seemingly, the defendants in Civil Cases Nos. 1333, 1341
and 1345 of the Court of First instance of Camarines Sur, entitled
“Garza vs. Vergara”. The plaintiffs therein were, apparently,
Segismundo, Jose and Vicente, all surnamed Garza. The nature and status
of said cases are not specifically stated in the records before us,
but, it may be gleaned therefrom that judgment against the defendants
therein (plaintiffs in the present case) had been rendered for the
restitution of a given land to the plaintiffs therein (defendants
herein). On motion of the latter, said court issued on September 21,
1956, an order directing the Sheriff to demolish the houses of
defendants therein—plaintiffs herein—in said land. Forthwith, the
latter sought a reconsideration of said order, which was denied on
September 29, 1956. Hence, said houses were, on October 13, 1956,
demolished by the Sheriff and his agents.

Soon thereafter,
or on October 16, 1956, plaintiffs herein commenced the present action
against Getulio Brucela and Justo Imperial, deputy provincial sheriff
and ex-oficio provincial sheriff, respectively, of Camarines
Sur, to recover damages and attorney’s fees, as well as expenses of
litigation, upon the ground that said officers had destroyed the
aforementioned houses before the order for the demolition thereof had
become final. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to include as
party defendants the plaintiffs in said Civil Cases Nos. 1333, 1341 and
1345, or Segismundo, Jose and Vicente Garza. The defendants moved for
the dismissal of said amended complaint upon the ground that the
demolition of plaintiff’s houses had been made in obedience to an order
of the court; that the same is expressly authorized by the Rules of
Court to order the execution of a judgment or order even before the
expiration of the time to appeal therefrom (Section 13, Rule 39, Rules
of Court) and that plaintiffs do not claim or allege either that the
court had erred in issuing the order aforementioned or that they had
attempted to appear therefrom. Defendants objected to this motion,
asserting that the same is based upon grounds requiring the
introduction of evidence. This objection was sustained, but, on motion
for reconsideration filed by the defendants, the lower court reversed
its stand, by an order dated March 20, 1957, from which plaintiffs have
appealed, upon refusal of the lower court to reconsider it.

Plaintiffs maintain that the order of dismissal of the amended
complaint is erroneous, it being alleged in said pleading that the
order of demolition was executed before it had become final. It
appears, however, that said order directed the “immediate” demolition
of said houses, so that the sheriffs merely acted in compliance with a
judicial command, and cannot be held liable therefor. Plaintiffs argue
that this fact should not have been considered by the lower court, for
it was not alleged in the amended complaint. But, said fact was not
denied by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, they admitted, and still
admit, the peremptory tenor of the order of demolition. Hence, it is
clear that the acts complained of were performed in obedience to an
order, the validity of which is not questioned, so that no cause of
action could possibly arise from said acts against the defendants
herein.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiffs-appellants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.