G.R. No. L-26112. June 30, 1967
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MIGUEL TOLENTINO SR., ZOILA DE CHAVEZ, DEOGRACIAS MERCADO MARIANO PANTOJA, GUILLERMO MERCADO, AGAPITO REYES, ISIDRO BESAS, LEONA LACHICA, ELENO MACA…
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
This is an incident arising from the refusal of the Court of
First Instance of Batangas — presided over by
respondent, Honorable Jaime de los Angeles, Judge —
to order the execution of the decision of said Court in Civil Case No. 373
thereof, as modified by this Court in Case
No. G.R. L-20950, entitled “Republic
of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus Ayala Y Cia. and/or Hacienda Calatagan, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants. Miguel
Tolentino, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.”
The basic facts are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:
“In an amended complaint dated May 12, 1960 filed in the Court
of First Instance of Batangas (Civil Case No. 373)
against Ayala y Cia., Alfonzo Zobel, Antonino Dizon,
Lucia Dizon, Ruben
Adelaida D. Reyes, Consolacion
D. Degollacion, Artemio Dizon and Zenaida Dizon, the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines sought the
annulment of files allegedly obtained by the defendants over portions of territorial waters of the
public domain. It was alleged that the
defendant company caused the survey and preparation of a composite plan of
Hacienda Calatagan, increasing its area from
9,652.583 hectares (as evidenced by TCT No. 722) to 12,000 hectares, by taking
or including therein lands of public dominion.
Thus plaintiff also prayed for recovery of possession of such areas in
excess of those covered by TCT No. 722, and for which fishpond permits were
already issued in favor of bona fide applicants; for damages in the sum of P500,000.00, and for a restraining order to enjoin defendants
from exercising further acts of ownership.
Miguel Tolentino and 22 others alleged holders
of fishpond permits issued by the Bureau of Fisheries over the areas supposedly
outside the boundaries of Hacienda Calatagan, were
allowed to intervene in the case and make demand for recovery of possession of
said areas and claim for damages for the deprivation of possession thereof allegedly
by the illegal
acts of defendants.
“Defendants, while admitting that there really existed a
difference between the area (of the Hacienda) as appearing in TCT No. 722 and the plan
prepared by the commissioned private surveyor for the company, contend that the
excess (of area) was insignificant in nature and attributable to the inaccuracy of
the magnetic survey that was used in the preparation of the plan upon which OCT
No. 20 (and later, TCT 722) was based.
“After trial, during which the parties presented documentary
and testimonial evidence, the court rendered judgment annulling TCT No. T-9550
of the Register of
Deeds of Batangas, issued to defendant Dizons covering Lots 360,362,363 and 182 as well as other
subdivision titles issued to Ayala y Cia.
and/or Hacienda de Calatagan
over the areas outside its private property covered by TCT No. 722, and
ordering defendants Dizons to vacate Lot. 360 in
favor of intervenor Miguel Tolentino,
and all the defendants to pay said intervenor,
jointly and severally compensatory damages in the sum of P3,000.00 a year per
hectare of Lot 360, until he is placed in possession thereof. Defendants were also restrained from exercising
acts of ownership over said lots 360,362,363, and 182 of Psd
40891. This ruling was based upon the
finding that the disputed areas form part of the navigable water, or are
portions of the sea, beach and foreshores of the bay. However, as the intervenors,
other than Miguel Tolentino, failed to establish with
particularity the lots allegedly covered by their respective permits or to name
the present possessors or occupants thereof, and as Ayala y Cia.,
Alfonso Zobel, and the Dizons
were he only ones impleaded as parties defendants,
the judgment was made effective exclusively against them. Thus, Lot No. 360, included in TCT No. T-9550
in the name of the Dizons, and proved by intervenor Miguel Tolentino to
be the portion covered by the fishpond permit issued to him, was ordered by
the court delivered to said intervenor. As a consequence
of this
decision, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, to
place the plaintiff and intervenor in session
of the disputed
properties, was issued by the court.
However, by order of May 3, 1961, the same was set aside on the ground
that in the issuance thereof, the defendants were not given their day in
court. The motion for reconsideration of
this order was denied on October 5, 1962, for the reason, among others, that as defendants have always been in possession of the areas in
question, to order delivery of such possession to the other parties at this
stage of the proceeding will result in injuries and promote confusion. Both parties
appealed directly to this Court: the
plaintiff and intervenors claiming that the court erred in not awarding
damages to the plaintiff State; in holding that the
areas claimed by the intervenors other than Miguel Tolentino were not duly identified; and in suspending the
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which had been executed and served by
the Provincial Sheriff. Defendants, on
the other hand, claim that the trial court was in error in finding that Lots
360, 362, 363, and 182 of Psd-40891 are outside the boundaries of Hacienda Calatagan, as delimited in TCT 722, and in ordering for
their reversion to the public dominion; and in ordering the latter to deliver possession of Lot 360 to intervenor
Miguel Tolentino; in ordering defendants to
pay said intervenor compensatory damages, and in not
declaring the defendants Dizons entitled to
reimbursement of all necessary
expenses made on the properties in
question.”
After going over the evidence,
this Court “found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial
court,” as well as its conclusion to the effect “that the areas in
dispute were x x
x portions of the foreshore, beach or
navigable water itself;” that the same are “not x x x capable of registration:” that
“their inclusion in a certificate of title does not convert the same into
properties of private ownership or confer title on the registrant;” and
that “as the lots covered by TCT No. T-9550, issued in the names of
defendants Dizons (and which were purchased by the
latter from defendants Ayala y Cia. and/or Alfonso Zobel) were x x x portions of the foreshore or of the territorial waters,
the lower court Committed no error in rendering judgment against said
defendants and ordering the reversion of said properties to the public
domain.”
We further ruled, however, that “there being no showing that
defendants Dizons are not purchasers in good faith
and for value, they have a right
to retention of the property until x x x reimbursed
of the necessary expenses made on the land” and that, accordingly, they
“cannot also be held liable for damages allegedly suffered by
other parties on account of their” (Dizon’s) “possession
of the property-” The last two (2) paragraphs of the decision of this
Court were:
“In view of the foregoing, the revocation of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
previously issued by the lower court, and the suspension of the delivery
of possession of the properties to plaintiff and intervenor
Tolentino, were in order.
“WHEREFORE, thus modified, the decision of the lower court
appealed from is hereby affirmed. No
costs.”
Soon after our decision had become final, the records of the case
were returned to the Court of First
Instance of Batangas, which, on motion of the
Republic and the Intervenors, ordered, on December 27, 1965, the issuance of the corresponding writ of
execution. The same was forthwith issued
on the same date. On January 8, 1966, the defendants moved
to quash said writ, and this motion was granted by the lower court on February 2, 1966. On February
8, 1966, it, likewise, issued an order denying a motion of the
Republic and intervenor Tolentino
for the issuance of another writ of execution of the dispositive portion of the decision in question, which is
of the following tenor:
“(a) Declaring null and void Transfer
Certificate of
Title No. T-9550 (or Exhibit ‘24’) of the Register of Deeds of Batangas, and other subdivision titles issued in favor of
Ayala Y Cia., and/or Hacienda Calatagan
over the areas outside its private land covered by TCT No. 722, which,
including the lots in T-9550 (Lots 360,362,383 and 182) are hereby reversed to
public domain.”
A reconsideration of said orders of February 2 and 8 having been
denied, on April 13, 1966, the Republic, Tolentino
and the other intervenors in the principal case
commenced, in the Supreme Court, the present action for certiorari and
mandamus, to annul said orders of January 18, February 2 and 8, and April 13,
1966, upon the ground that the same had been issued with grave abuse of
discretion and in excess of jurisdiction, it being the ministerial duty of the
lower court to order the execution of the final and executory
decision on the merits of the main case, as amended.
The basic facts are not disputed.
Respondents seek to justify the orders complained of upon the ground
that the dispositive part of our decision in Case
G.R. No. L-20950 is rather vague and requires a clarification, because:
“x
x x Since defendants
Dizons were held not liable for the
alleged damages, it follows that the joint
and several character of the obligation imposed by this Honorable
Court was extinguished, because the other defendants herein will no longer
be able to claim from defendants Dizons the share
which corresponds to the latter (2nd par., Art. 1217, Civil
Code).”
This contention is absolutely
devoid of merit. To begin with, Art. 1217 of our Civil Code, cited by respondents, refers to the effect of payment by one of the solidary debtors. No
such payment having been made in the case at bar, said Article is clearly inapplicable thereto. The only provision which respondents might
have had in mind (on the
assumption that their reference to Art. 1217 was due merely to a misprint)
is Art. 1215 of said code, reading:
“x
x x Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt,
made by any of the solidary creditors or with any of
the solidary debtors, shall extinguish the
obligation, without prejudice to the provisions
of article
1219.
“The creditor who may have executed any of these acts, as well
as he who collects the debt, shall be liable to the others for the share in the
obligation corresponding to them.”
Neither is this Article in point.
The aforementioned decision this Court cannot be regarded as remitting a
solidary obligation of the Dizons,
because, as possessors in good faith, they were and are entitle by law
to retain the property in question, until the indemnity due to the is
paid. In other words, they were never
under obligation to pay damage to Tolentino, either
jointly or solidarily, and, hence, there was no solidary obligation on their part that could have been
remitted. The decision the Court of First Instance holding all of the
defendants herein jointly and solidarily liable for
the payment of said damages, did not create a solidary obligation.
It was no more than an attempt to declare the existence said
obligation, which attempt — not the solidary
obligation __ was frustrated by our
decision establishing that such
obligation did not and does not exist.
In this connection, it should be noted that the dispositive part of the decision of the lower court, which was the
object of the appeal in G.R. No. L-20950, provided:
“‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
“(a) Declaring as null and void Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-9550 (or Exhibit ‘24’) of the Register of Deeds of
the Province of Batangas and other subdivision titles
issued in favor of Ayala y Cia. and/or
Hacienda de Calatagan over the areas outside its private
land covered by TCT No. 722, which, including the lots in T-9550 (lots
360,362,363 and 182) are hereby reverted to public dominion;
“(b) Ordering defendants Antonino Dizon, Lucia Dizon,
Adelaida Dizon Reyes, Consolacion Dizon Degollacion, Artemio Dizon, Ruben Dizon, Amorando Dizon, and Zenaida Dizon, to vacate
lot 360 in favor of Intervenor Miguel Tolentino;
(c) Ordering all the defendants to jointly and severally pay intervenor
Miguel Tolentino compensatory damages in the sum of
P3,000.00 a year per hectare of lot 360 from March 11, 1954, until he is placed
in lawful possession of the said area;
“(d) Restraining are enjoining the defendants from further
ownership and possession over lots 360, 362, 363 and 182 of Psd-40891; and
“(e) Ordering the defendants to jointly and
severally pay the costs.” (CFI-Decision, Civil
Case No. 373, June 2, 1962; Defendants’ Record on Appeal, pp. 259-260).
This decision was affirmed by us, except as regards subdivision
(c) thereof, which should be deemed modified so as to read, in affect, as follows:
“(c) Ordering all the defendants, except the Dizons, to jointly and severally pay intervenor Miguel Tolentino
compensatory damages in the sum of P3,000.00 a year per hectare of lot 360 from
March 11, 1954, until he is placed in
lawful possession of the said area;”
and, except
also, insofar as the Dizons have — pursuant to the
decision, as amended — the right
of retention therein stated.
It may not be amiss to add that it is the ministerial duty of
respondent Judge to order the issuance of the writ of execution of the
aforementioned decision, as modified by this Court, even if said respondent
entertained the doubts pointed out in the orders complained of.
Petitioners seek to recover from respondents herein, as moral,
actual and exemplary damages, the sums of P80,000, for
having been deprived of the use and
possession of the portions of the territorial waters above referred to, and
P100,000, “for (respondent’s) having unduly prolonged this
litigation” by resorting to technical devices “to prevent the
enforcement of the final decision against them.” These claims cannot be
upheld: the first, for P80,000, because
the damages resulting from said deprivation of use and possession have already
been adjudicated in the decision in question; and the second, for P100,000,
because the undue delay was mainly due to the action of the lower court. Besides, an action for certiorari and
mandamus, before this Court, is not a proceeding suitable for the
determination of the latter damages.
WHEREFORE, said orders dated January 18, February 2 and 8,
and April 13, 1966, should be, as they are hereby, annulled, and respondent
Judge is directed to order the issuance of a writ of execution for the
enforcement of the decision in question, with costs against respondents herein,
except respondent Judge, Honorable Jaime
de los Angeles.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz
Castro, JJ., concur.