SIMPUCIO ALINSOLORIN, PETITIONER, VS. MATEO M. CANONOY, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH III, 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND ANDREA SALUD, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction filed by Simplicio Alinsolorin against Andrea Salud
and the Hon. Mateo M. Canonoy, presiding judge of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, 14th Judicial
District, to annul the latter’s order of January 12, 1960 in Civil Case No.
R-5682, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

On August 11, 1958,
respondent Salud commenced Civil Case No. R-5682 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against her husband, petitioner Alinsolorin, for separation of conjugal properties and for
the return of her paraphernal properties. Alinsolorin denied the material averments of the complaint
and further alleged that, inasmuch as the parties were very old and unable to
personally administer their properties, he, as administrator of the conjugal
partnership, had named their grandson, Julian Suaring,
to administer their lands and collect the fruits thereof, with the obligation of
turning over the same to them; that his wife had been receiving her share of the
fruits.

After due trial, the respondent judge rendered judgment as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the first three parcels
described in par. 2 of the petition as the paraphernal
properties of the petitioner with right to the immediate possession of the same,
and ordering the defendant or his attorney-in-fact to deliver the same
immediately to her;

2. Declaring the remaining
five parcels described in par. 3 of the petition as the conjugal properties of
the spouses, and maintaining the husband as the administrator thereof;

3. Ordering the said
defendant to pay to the petitioner twenty pesos monthly as her liquidated share
of the produce of the conjugal properties, and exempting her from rendering any
report on the income of her parapnernal
properties.

No costs and damages.”

Subsequently, upon discovering that petitioner had sold the conjugal
properties to their grandson, Julian Snaring, for P3,000.00, respondent Salud filed an
action against them for the annulment of the sale.

Meanwhile, as petitioner failed to pay the monthly
allowance of P20.00 as required in the judgment rendered in Civil Case
No. R-5682—which had become final—Salud filed a
motion therein to declare petitioner in contempt of court. During the hearing
thereon, petitioner explained lo the court that his failure to pay the allowance
was due to the fact that he had already sold the conjugal properties to Julian
Suaring and that the proceeds of the sale were used to
defray the family expenses.

Resolving the motion for contempt, the respondent judge, on January 12, 1960, issued the following
order subject of the present petition.

“The court hereby resolves:

1. In the interim the civil
case involving the validity or nullity of the supposed sale of the conjugal
properties in favor of Julian Suaring is pending, to
order the defendant to deposit the proceeds of the said sale in the Court within
ten (10) days from receipt hereof; and to pay wit of the said deposit the
monthly pension of the plaintiff herein.”

The only issue now before Us is whether or not
respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue the order of January 12, 1960.

Petitioner argues that the respondent judges order requiring him to deposit
in court the proceeds of the alleged sale in favor of Snaring and to pay
respondent Salud the monthly pension of P20.00 from
the proceeds aforesaid is a modification or alteration of the judgment of July
8, 1959 which had become final; that it is also a limitation or diminution of
his powers of administration over the properties without authority or
jurisdiction; and that in issuing the order complained of, the respondent judge
gave respondent Salud a relief not sought for in her
motion for contempt of court.

All the above contentions are without merit.

As petitioner himself admits, the decision rendered in
Civil Case No. R-5682 has long ago become executory. Thereunder, it was his
obligation, inter alia, to pay the monthly sum of
P20.00 to his wife “as her liquidated share of the produce of the conjugal
properties”. Neither can petition en deny the right, nay, the duty of the
respondent judge to see to it that the aforesaid judgment of the court is
faithfully carried out. By selling the conjugal properties to his grandson,
petitioner obviously intended to avoid complying with his duty under said
judgment It was clearly, therefore, within the authority of the respondent judge
first, to order petitioner to deposit in court what the latter claims to have
been the proceeds of the alleged sale and to require him to use them in paying
the amount due to his wife. Thai this relief was granted by the respondent judge
in resolving a motion for contempt filed by petitioner’s wife is of no moment,
it being clear that such relief is another means of compelling petitioner to
comply with the final judgment referred to heretofore.

WHEREFORE, the petition under consideration is dismissed, with the
result that the writ prayed for is denied.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.