TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR., PRESENTACION CALO, AMADO CALO, URBANO CALO, ERLINDA CALO, CARMELITA CALO, AND PURIFICACION CALO, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCISCO CABANOS, ANIANA CABANOS, TH…

The order complained of is for
the execution of the judgment of the respondent court, affirmed by this Court on
October 30, 1958 .

The antecedent facts which form
the background of the Instant petition are reproduced below, as stated by
respondent Court of First Instance in its decision of September 30, 1954 , rendered after a partial new
trial ordered by the Court of Appeals and attached as Annex A to the petition.

“On May
13, 1940 , the spouses Tranquilino Calo and Sofia Oca sold a parcel of land (description of land omitted) to
the spouses Basilio Javier and Jacoba Abaquin for the sum of
P2,500.00 subject to redemption within a period of six (6) years from date of
sale.

On June 18, 1942, Tranquilino Calo, then a widower,
executed a power of attorney In favor of the plaintiffs (Francisco Cabanos and Aniana Cabanos) authorizing them to pay with their own money to the
spouses Basilio Javier and Jacoba Abaquin, the price of 230
cavanes of palay at F4.00 a
cavan, representing the rentals for two (2) years and
to repurchase from said spouses for P2,500.00 the
parcel of land. On the same day, June 18, 1942, Aniana
Cabanos and Francisco Cabanos paid to Basilio Javier, in
Philippine Currency, the sum of P3,420, and in
consideration thereof, the spouses Basilio Javier and
Jacoba Abaquin executed a
deed ceding and transferring all their right, Interest and participation in the
said parcel of land to the plaintiffs subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in the deed of sale with right of repurchase. On the same day, Tranquilino Calo leased from said
plaintiffs the land in question In consideration of a yearly rental of 115 cavanes of palay.

On July 6,
1942 , the defendant Tranquilino Calo sold to the
herein plaintiffs another parcel of land (description of land omitted) for the
sum of P600.00 subject, however, to redemption within five (5) years from date
of sale. On the same date, defendant leased the said property from the
plaintiffs in consideration of an annual rental of 20 cavanes of palay.

For the year 1942-43, Tranquilino Calo delivered to the
plaintiffs twenty (20) cavanes of palay out of 135 cavanes which were the aggregate yearly rental for the two
lots. In view of this default, the plaintiffs on May 1,
1944 , filed an action against the
defendant for the recovery of the overdue rentals for the two lots. The
complaint was subsequently amended (to include a prayer for recission of the lease contract and for recovery of
possession of the two lots).

xxx xxx
xxx

After due trial, the trial court
on November 29, 1947 , rendered a decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

‘IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
plaintiffs Francisco Cabanos and Aniana Cabanos are hereby declared
owners of the two parcels of land described in this decision and that the
defendant Tranquilino is hereby ordered: (1) to
deliver to the plaintiffs the possession of the said two parcels of land; (2) to
deliver to said plaintiffs six hundred fifty-five (655) cavanes of palay as unpaid balance
of the rentals from the year 1942 to the year 1947, inclusive, or the agreed
price of P4.00 a cavan, stipulated and adopted as the
basis of computation of the annual rental in palay at
the time the lease agreements were made by the parties; (3) to pay to the
plaintiffs a further rental of one hundred thirty-five (135) cavanes of palay for every year
commencing with the agricultural year 1947-1948 until the delivery by the
defendant to the plaintiffs of the said two parcels of land and (4) to pay the
costs.’

Tranquilino Calo
appealed from this decision and on April 20, 1953 , the Court of Appeals promulgated
a decision the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:

‘IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, appellant
Tranquilino Calo is hereby
given thirty (30) days, from the date on which this decision shall have become
final within which to redeem the two (2)lots in question. Should he exercise the
right of redemption within said period, he shall be relieved of the obligation
to pay the stipulated rentals to the Cabanos, as well
as of the obligation to return the property in question to them, from the date
of said redemption. In all other respects, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance.’

Tranquilino Calo
moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing decision in so far as it held
that the deposit was not a valid consignation and in not holding that the
plaintiffs were liable for the loss of the amount consigned in Court for the
reason that judicial notice of the deposit was served upon and acknowledged by
them. The plaintiffs objected to the motion for reconsideration on the ground
that the notice and acknowledgment of the deposit, Annexes “A” and “B” did not
form part of the records of the case on appeal and they could not be taken into
consideration. On September 3, 1953 , the Court of Appeals, resolved
to grant defendants’ motion for reconsideration in the sense that –

‘… that portion of the decision
of this Court pointing out that no notice of the consignation had been made and
the consequences resulting therefrom is hereby set
aside and that the record of this case is hereby remanded to the court of origin
for new trial for the admission of Annexes “A” and “B” above-mentioned-and for
rendition of judgment in accordance with the additional evidences thus
introduced, and the other evidences already appearing in the record, and in
conformity with the other portions of the aforesaid decision of this Court.’ ”

After the new trial the lower
court, finding that no notice had been given by the defendant prior to the
deposit of the money in court and therefore no valid consignation had been
effected, rendered judgment as follows:

“WHEREFORE, In conformity with the
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 3682-R dated
September 3, 1953 , judgment is hereby rendered
granting Tranquilino Calo or
his successors in interest a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this
decision shall have become final, within which to redeem the two parcels of land
in question. Should he exercise the right of redemption within the said period,
he shall be relieved of the obligation to pay the stipulated rentals to the
plaintiffs, as well as the obligation to return to them the said property, from
the date of redemption. Tranquilino Calo and/or his successors in interest are hereby ordered to
deliver to the plaintiffs six hundred fifty-five (655) cavanes of palay as unpaid balance
of the rentals from 1942 to 1947, inclusive, or the agreed price of P4.00 a
cavan stipulated and adopted as the basis of
computation of the annual rental in palay at the time
the lease agreements were made and a further rental of one hundred thirty-five
(135) cavanes of palay for
every year commencing with the agricultural year of 1947-1948 until the
redemption of the two parcels of land as herein authorized or until the delivery
thereof to the plaintiffs should Tranquilino Calo and/or his successors In interest fail to exercise the
right of redemption. Tranquilino Calo and/or his successors in interest are ordered to pay
the costs in this instance.”

In the meantime the original
defendant Tranquilino Calo
died and was substituted by his heirs and successors -in- interest (now
petitioners before us),who appealed from the judgment last mentioned on a
question of law.

On October 30,
1958 the
Supreme Court affirmed, and its decision became final and executory on September 30,
1959 .

On October 27, 1959 , the substitute defendants
tendered to the plaintiffs the sum of P4,100.00 as payment of the redemption
price and of the back rentals adjudged by the Court. The plaintiffs refused to
accept the money and so the defendants, after due notice, deposited the sum of
P4,100.00 with the Clerk of Court, who on the same day
informed the plaintiffs of the deposit thus made.

On December 19, 1960 , the plaintiffs filed a motion
for execution, which was granted by the Court in its order dated
June 6,
1961 ,
the dispositive part of which is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared
that the tender of payment made by the defendants to the plaintiffs in the
exercise of their right of redemption of the two parcels of land Involved in
this case was effected within the time prescribed In the decision appealed from
and accordingly the plaintiffs are hereby directed to execute the corresponding
deed of reconveyance of said properties in favor of
the defendants to be effected within a period of thirty (30) days from notice of
this order. The award made in the decision corresponding to the payment of the
rentals for the properties in question had already become final and executory and as the same has remained unsatisfied, the
Clerk of Court is ordered to issue a writ of execution against the defendants to
deliver to the plaintiffs 655 cavans of palay as unpaid balance of the rentals from the year 1942 to
1947, inclusive, plus 135 cavanes of palay per year for 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954,
1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959, or to pay in lieu thereof the agreed price of
P4.00 a cavan, but from the total amount due should be
deducted the sum of P80.00 which was the excess of the sum deposited by the
defendants with the Clerk of Court for the redemption of the two lots and should
be applied partially to the payment of rentals.”

On January 18,
1962 the
Deputy Clerk of Court of respondent Court issued an alias writ of execution. The
sheriff, on March 9, 1962 , sent Tranquilino Calo, Jr., one of the
petitioners, a letter which reads:

“This is acknowledged (sic)
receipt the attached Alias Writ of Execution for service. Being one of the heirs of the defendant Tranquilino Calo who is already
deceased (sic). You are hereby given 15th (sic) days upon receipt the
said writ to settle in our office the amount of Seven Thousand Pesos (P7,000.00)
in favor of the plaintiffs Francisco Cabaños. The
other heirs were also served with copies but all of them rely in your decision.
Failure in your part to settle the said amount this office will confiscate the
land mentioned in the case (sic).”

On March 17, 1962 the defendants
filed with respondent court a motion for clarification, with a prayer to stop
the sheriff from modifying or supplementing the judgment sought to be executed,
alleging: (1) that the redemption prices of the two lots were P2,500.00 and
P600.00, respectively, or P3,100.00 in all, and since they had deposited
P4,100.00 there was an excess of P1,000.00 which should be applied to the unpaid
rentals; and (2) that inasmuch as the redemption was effected in 1959 the yearly
rental of 135 cavans of palay corresponding to the agricultural year 1958-59 should
be excluded from the computation. The motion was denied by respondent court on
March 27, 1962 , and petitioners then filed the
instant petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in
the issuance of the order of June 6,
1961 and
in threatened action of respondent sheriff pursuant to said order.

The allegations contained in
petitioners’ motion for clarification before respondent court
are reiterated here in support of the petition. The first allegation is
groundless. When the Cabanos spouses redeemed the
first lot from the original vendees they paid not only P2,500.00 but also the price of 230 cavans of palay, at P4.00 a cavan or P920.00 representing the rents in arrears for two
years. Added to the P600.00 they paid to Tranquilino
Calo for the other lot, the total amount disbursed by
them was P4,020.00, just P80.00 less than the sum of
P4,100.00 deposited by the petitioners in court. This excess of P80.00 was
properly applied to the rents still unpaid.

The second allegation of the
petitioners is likewise without merit. From 1942 to 1947 the unpaid rents on the
two lots amounted to 655 cavans of palay. Thereafter, until the redemption was effected on
October 30, 1959 , or for a period of twelve (12)
years, the rents amounted to 1,620 cavans. Contrary to
the petitioners’ claim the rent for the agricultural year 1958-1959 was properly
included, since the redemption of the lands by them took place after the said
agricultural year had ended in March 1959. All in all, the petitioners’
liability for rents under the judgment summed up to 2,275 cavans of palay, equivalent to
P9,100.00 at P4.00 a cavan.
From this amount the supersedeas bond of P2,000. 00, which had been paid to the respondents, should be
deducted, thus leaving a balance of P7,100.00, to which
again the sum of P80.00 should be credited. This computation is the basis of the
sheriff’s letter of March 9, 1962 , sent to petitioner Tranquilino Calo, Jr., demanding
payment of P7,000.00 pursuant to the order of execution issued by respondent
court.

The petitioners say that in said
letter they are being made to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally,
when there is nothing in the judgment sought to be executed which imports
solidarity. This claim is without basis. The demand was logically for the whole
judgment debt, and was addressed to Tranquilino Calo, Jr. alone, not because he was solidarily liable but because he was the lawyer of the other
petitioners and all of them, according to the sheriff, were relying on his
decision. As pointed out by the respondents, it is of no importance to them how
the petitioners share in the obligation as long as it is satisfied in full,
failing which the two lots in question may properly be levied upon and sold at
public auction. This is precisely what was explained in the letter of the
sheriff to which the petitioners take such vehement exception. The threatened
levy on the land -which after all belonged to the original defendant, Tranquilino Calo, Sr., – in order
to satisfy the indebtedness contracted by him, does not render the liability of
his successors-in-interest, the petitioners herein, joint and several.

The writ prayed for is DENIED,
with costs against the petitioners.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez
and Ruiz
Castro, JJ., concur.