G.R. No. L-10865. February 13, 1958

This is a petition for certiorari with a
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to set aside the order of
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo of April 19, 1956, ordering the
petitioners herein to return the possession of Lot No. 2467-B of the
Cadastral Survey of Dueñas, Iloilo, to Pacifico Espino, thereby
restoring “the status quo of the parties existing at the time the writ
of possession was issued on April 30, 1956” (should be 1954), which
order is said to have been issued with grave abuse of discretion or in
excess of jurisdiction of respondent Judge Hilarion U. Jarencio.
Petitioners having filed the bond required, we issued the writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for.

The facts to be gathered from the present petition, the pleadings
filed by the parties with the Iloilo court (Cadastral Court), and the
decision and orders of said court, ail regarding the said Lot No.
2467-B, may be briefly stated thus: It would appear that said cadastral
lot was contested. Respondent Pacifico Espino claims that from the very
beginning, he had filed with the Cadastral Court an answer claiming
said Lot No. 2467-B way back in or before 1952, but that petitioners,
heirs of Francisco Lauron, up to December 10, 1952, had never filed any
original or reconstituted answer over said lot. He further claims that
when the lot was called for hearing on November 4, 1952, there was no
other claimant except himself, and that an order of general default was
issued against the whole world, particularly against Francisco Lauron,
the deceased predecessor in interest of petitioners; and that said
order of general default directed the Clerk of Court to receive the
evidence for Pacifico Espino, but that he, Espino, failed to present
his evidence then because he was not up-to-date in the payment of the
land taxes; that on December 10, 1952, the lot was again called for
hearing and upon failure of any party to appear, it was declared public
land; that it was only in January or February, 1954 that the
petitioners filed their answer or claim to the lot, and that on
February 12, 1954, the herein petitioners filed a motion in court to
set aside the order of December 10, 1952, declaring the lot public
land; that although a copy of the motion was furnished Atty. Alfonso
Sirilan, no copy was ever given to Pacifico Espino; Lauron, et al. vs.
Judge Jarencio, et al, that when said motion of the herein petitioners
was called for hearing on February 19, 1954, the court declared in open
court that it would set aside the order of December 10, 1952 if the
claimants would present receipts showing payment of taxes up to that
year; that an order dated February 18, 1954 was issued by the lower
court, finding” the motion of the petitioners well founded, and
declaring without effect its order of December 10, 1952, which declared
the lot in question public land; that on February 24, 1954, counsel for
herein petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation but
furnished no copy thereof to Pacifico Espino, despite the fact that his
claim to said lot was on record and his answer claiming it was still in
the record of the case, and because of that lack of notification, he,
Espino, had no opportunity to oppose the Urgent Manifestation;
that acting upon said Manifestation, the cadastral court issued its
order of March 2, 1954, directing the Clerk of Court to receive the
evidence for herein petitioners, heirs of Francisco Lauron, and that on
the basis of said evidence, the Cadastral Court rendered its decision
of March 4, 1954. This decision stated and held that Lot No. 2467-B had
previously been declared public land because of the failure of the
claimants, heirs of Francisco Lauron, to appear; that according to the
evidence, the Jot formerly belonged to Francisco Lauron, and that upon
Francisco’s death in 1933, he was succeeded by his children, Eufrosina,
Presentacion, Rosalina, Prescilla, and Carlos, the latter one being
already dead; that the lot had been possessed by the heirs of Francisco
Lauron, cultivating the same; that their possession, together with that
of their predecessor in interest, was public, peaceful, continuous, and
adverse and in the concept of owner, since before the year 1894, and
adjudicated said lot to the heirs of Francisco Lauron.

On April 22, 1954, the heirs of Francisco Lauron (petitioners
herein) filed a petition for a writ of possession of the lot, asking
that Pacifico Espino and his children, who were supposed to have
entered the lot, be ousted therefrom and that petitioners be placed in
possession. The petition was granted, and on April 30, 1954, a writ of
possession was issued, directing the Sheriff to place the heirs of
Francisco Lauron in possession, and it seems that the sheriff complied
with the order. In connection with said writ of possession, the trial
court issued an order on September 28, 1954, saying that in connection
with the motion for contempt filed by the heirs of Francisco Lauron,
Maximino Palmares and Natividad Espino appeared and allegedly promised
that they would not again enter the lot and Natividad Espino was given
thirty days within which to remove her nipa hut from the premises.

On June 24, 1954, Pacifico Espino filed a petition to set aside the
decision of March 4, 1954 and the writ of possession issued on April
30, 1954, alleging some of the facts already narrated about the failure
of the heirs of Francisco Lauron to claim the lot in question, the
previous declaration of said lot as public land by the court and the
failure of the petitioners herein to notify him of their petition to
have the order declaring the lot public land set aside and his
consequent deprivation of the opportunity to oppose said petition and
to show by means of evidence that he was the real owner of Lot No.
2467-B, having inherited it from his mother, Petra Labro, and that he
and his mother had been in possession thereof for the last seventy
years until he was ejected from it by virtue of the writ of possession
said to have been illegally issued.

This petition of Espino was opposed by the heirs of Francisco
Lauron, alleging that the lot in question had been surveyed as a
contested lot between Francisco Lauron, et al. and Angel Labro, et al.;
that the reason the heirs of Francisco Lauron failed to appear when the
lot was first set for hearing was because the notice was directed not
to them, but to Francisco Lauron, who since then had died; that Espino,
through his counsel, failed to present his evidence in support of his
claim to the lot as a result of which, it was declared public land by
order of December 10, 1952, and that despite said declaration, Espino had taken no steps to prosecute his claim and set aside the
order until the herein petitioners, heirs of Francisco Lauron, filed a
motion to set aside; that a copy of their motion was furnished Atty.
Alfonso Sirilan, then counsel of record for Espino; and that despite
said notification, said counsel although he was inside the court, did
not oppose the motion nor opposed the presentation of their evidence.

Despite the opposition to the petition of Espino of June 24, 1954,
the lower court by order of April 22, 1955, declared that it was of the
opinion that the decision of March 4, 1954 should be set aside and that
an “opportunity be given to all the parties concerned to present their
respective claims over Lot No. 2467-B.” The order ended by saying:

* * * “In view thereof and in the interest of
justice, the decision dated March 4, 1954 and the writ of possession
dated April 30, 1954 are hereby set aside and the hearing on the
ownership of Lot No. 2467-B should be set on an early date.”

The heirs of Francisco Lauron filed a motion to reconsider the order
of April 22, 1955, which motion was denied by order of May 28, 1955. On
March 2, 1956, Pacifico Espino filed a petition “to restore him in the
possession of the lot in question” on the ground that the heirs of
Francisco Lauron, petitioners herein, through fraud and stealth, and
without notice to him, were able to secure the decision of March 4,
1954 adjudicating the lot to them and that on the basis of said
decision, they were able to oust him, his wife and children, from the
said lot; and that inasmuch as the decision of March 4, 1954 and the
writ of possession dated April 30, 1954 had already been set aside, the
heirs of Francisco Lauron were illegally possessing said lot, and that
they had never been in possession of the lot, except when the Sheriff
placed them in possession, in accordance with the writ of possession of
April 30, 1954. This last petition of Espino was opposed by the heirs
of Francisco Lauron, but the lower court evidently was not impressed by
said opposition, and so issued the controversial order of April 19,
1956, subject of these certiorari proceedings, ordering the heirs of
Francisco Lauron to return the possession of the lot to Espino. The
heirs of Francisco Lauron moved for the reconsideration of this order
and Espino opposed the motion for reconsideration. By order of June 13,
1956, respondent Judge Jarencio denied the motion for reconsideration.

After carefully considering the facts and circumstances above
narrated, we are not convinced that respondent Judge gravely abused his
discretion when he issued the order of April 19, 1956. In issuing said
order, respondent Judge evidently believed that an injustice had been
committed against Pacifico Espino in having him ejected from the lot in
question, which he apparently possessed and occupied peacefully and
adversely before his ejectment, without giving him an opportunity to
establish his right to continue possessing the land. As respondent
Judge said in his order, all that he wanted to do by means of his order
was “to restore the status quo of the parties existing at the
time the writ of possession was issued on April 30, 1954″ whereby
Espino was ejected from the lot and petitioners herein were placed in
possession. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that Lot No.
2467-B of the Dueñas, Iloilo, Cadastre was a contested lot between the
predecessors in interest of petitioners herein and those of Espino, and
by the order of the trial court of April 22, 1955, it directed that the
hearing of the case be set at an early date to determine the ownership
of the lot as between the parties concerned. In other words, a sort of
new trial was being given by respondent Judge so as to give each party
equal opportunity to establish its claim of ownership to the lot, at
the same time restoring Espino in the position where he was before,
namely, in the peaceful possession of the land when he was ejected
therefrom by the Sheriff.

With the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction already
issued, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied. No costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.