ANGEL VILLARICA AND NIEVES PALMA GIL VILLARICA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CONCEPCION PALMA GIL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

In conformity with a compromise agreement entered into by the
parties in Civil Case No. 1160 of the Court of First Instance of Davao,
entitled “Concepcion Palma Gil vs. Nieves Palma Gil and Angel
Villarica”—these defendants are hereafter referred to as the appellants
herein—said court rendered judgment on April 7, 1954, the dispositive
part of which reads:

“A la vista de los datos expuestos, el Juzgado dicta
sentencia condenando a la demandada, Nieves Palma Gil de Vilarica,
cumpla con los terminos del documento (Exh. ‘A’), ordenando a aquella
que otorgue los documentos necesarios traspasando a favor de la
demandante, 256 metros cuadrados con 20 centimetros del Lote No. 59-C,
descrito mas particularmente en el certificado de transferencia de
titulo No. 432.

“Ordena a la demandada que dentro del plazo
de un (1) año, a contar desde la promulgacion de esta decision,
construya el edificio mencionado en el (Exh. A) en Lote No. 59-C, y
otorgue los documentos necesarios cediendo a favor de la demandante el
usufructo vitalicio de las rentas de una mitad del indicada edificio.

“Con las costas contra de la demandada.”

On appeal, this decision was on October 24, 1955, affirmed by the
Court of Appeals (CA—G.R. No. 13417-R), except as to the date from
which the period of one (1) year within which Nieves Palma
Gil—hereinafter referred to as Miss Gil— was to construct the building
referred to in the decision of the lower court, would begin, which was
to be “from the entry of final judgment” in the case, instead of from
the promulgation of the original decision of the court of first
instance. In due course, the lower court issued on February 16, 1956,
the corresponding writ of execution, which was returned by the office
of the provincial sheriff with the statement that the defendant Nieves
Palma Gil—hereinafter referred to as Mrs. Villarica—”refused to execute
a document of reconveyance”. On motion of Miss Gil the provincial
sheriff was, on April 27, 1956, authorized, therefore, to execute said
document. Thereupon, the sheriff caused the aforementioned Lot No.
59—C, which has an area of over 800 square meters, to be surveyed and
subdivided into subdivision Lots Nos. 59-C-1 and 59-C-2, containing 256
and 573 square meters, respectively, and executed on May 11, 1956 a
deed conveying said Lot No. 59-C-1 to Miss Gil. Upon her motion, soon
thereafter, or on July 7, 1956, the lower court ordered the issuance of
an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction of her bill of costs,
aggregating P350.75, for the services of the surveyor (P150.00), the
preparation of the deed of transfer (P200.00) and documentary stamps
(P0.75). The appellants sought a reconsideration of said order, but
their motion was denied on September 10, 1956. On May 17, 1957, Miss
Gil filed a motion, which was granted on May 25, 1957, praying that an
alias writ of execution be issued directing Mrs. Villarica to construct
the building mentioned in the decision above quoted. Said alias writ of
execution, issued on May 30, 1957, was returned, however, on September
17, 1957, with the information that “the defendants refused to abide by
the Order in the writ of execution”.

In the meantime, the provincial sheriff had, also caused Lot No.
59-C to be further subdivided into subdivision Lots Nos. 59-C-1,
59-C-2, 59-C-3 and 59-C-4, with an area of 215, 38, 13 and 560 square
meters, respectively, and, purporting to act in accordance with the
aforementioned decision and with the order of the court of April 27,
1957, had executed on July 11, 1957, in favor of Miss Gil a deed of
transfer of said subdivision Lots Nos. 59-C-1 and 59-C-2, with an
aggregate area of 254 square meters. On August 28, 1957, appellants
moved that the sheriff be compelled to “report * * * regarding his
actuations with respect to” said order of April 27, 1956, “and that he
be examined regarding the same”, but the motion was denied in an order
dated September 7, 1957. A reconsideration thereof having been denied,
appellants filed a notice of appeal and the corresponding record on
appeal, which was docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. No.
22438-R.

While these proceedings were taking place, or on or about June 20,
1956, Miss Gil had instituted Civil Case No. 2246 of the Municipal
Court of Davao City to eject the appellants from the land conveyed by
the sheriff to the former and to recover damages. Judgment having been
rendered therein, on October 4, 1956, against the herein appellants, a
motion for the immediate execution of said judgment was filed by Miss
Gil on October 9, 1956. Soon, thereafter, or on October 24, 1956,
appellants instituted Civil Case No. 2151 of the Court of First
Instance of Davao against Miss Gil, the Provincial Sheriff of Davao,
the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, first branch, the
Municipal Judge of Davao City, and the Register of Deeds thereof. In
the complaint therein filed, appellants alleged that the subdivision
made of Lot No. 59-C was illegal; that the conveyance by the sheriff of
a specific portion thereof to Miss Gil arbitrary, as well as unlawful;
that the registration of the corresponding deed of conveyance in favor
of Miss Gil should not be allowed; and that the judgment rendered in
the unlawful detainer case is contrary to law, for which reason it was
prayed that said deed of conveyance, as well as the proceedings in the
unlawful detainer case and those held in Civil Case No. 1160 in
connection with the execution of the decision therein, be declared null
and void, and that Miss Gil be sentenced to pay compensatory and moral
damages, aside from attorney’s fees and costs. On December 21, 1956,
Illuminada U. Pacetes, who had allegedly purchased the interest of Miss
Gil in and to the land in dispute, was allowed to intervene in said
Case No. 2151. A motion to dismiss the complaint therein having been
filed, the court granted said motion and dismissed the complaint, upon
the ground that the error committed by the sheriff in subdividing Lot
No. 59-C and in conveying a portion thereof to Miss Gil, without
judicial approval, may be corrected in the aforementioned Civil Case
No. 1160; that the Municipal Court of Davao City had jurisdiction over
the unlawful detainer case; and that such errors, if any, as may have
been committed in deciding the same, may be corrected only by appeal
from the decision of said municipal court. Hence, this appeal by the
appellants, which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 22008-R of the Court of
Appeals. Subsequently, the latter certified said case CA-G.R. No.
22088-R, as well as case CA-G.R. No. 22438-R to this Court, upon the
ground that the issues raised in both raise purely questions of law.
Said cases have been docketed in this Court as G. R. No. L-15799 and
L-15801, respectively.

Appellants maintain that the lower court erred:

1. In Case G. R. No. L-15799; (1) in authorizing the
   provincial sheriff to execute the corresponding deed of conveyance,
   despite the absence of any showing that appellants had failed to
   execute said deed within the specified time and the fact
   that, according to the sheriff’s return, only Mrs. Villarica had
   refused to execute said deed; (2) in not ordering the sheriff to submit
   to the court for approval all of his actuations, as well as the deed of
   conveyance executed by him; (3) in not declaring that the sheriff had
   no authority to specify, determine and survey a specific portion of Lot
   No. 59-C; (4) in not cancelling and declaring null and void the deeds
   of transfer executed by the sheriff on May 11, 1956 and July 11, 1957;
   (5) in not declaring said acts of the sheriff contrary to law and
   violative of the due process clause; and (6) in issuing the order of
   July 7, 1956, authorizing the issuance of an alias writ of execution
   for the recovery of the costs.

2. In case G.
   R. No. L-15801: (1) in holding that the errors, irregularities and
   arbitrary acts of the sheriff could only be corrected in Case No. 1160;
   and (2) in not nullifying the proceedings in the unlawful detainer
   case.

Relying upon section 10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, appellants
argue that the lower court erred in authorizing the sheriff on April
27, 1956 to execute the required deed of conveyance in favor of
Concepcion Palma Gil, for the decision sought to be executed allegedly
gave appellants one (1) year within which to comply therewith, and said
period did not expire until August 16, 1956. This is not true. Said
period of one (1) year was given for the construction of the building
mentioned in said decision, not for the execution of said deed of
conveyance. Besides since Mrs. Villarica had unqualifiedly refused to
execute such deed, it would have been unnecessary to wait for the
expiration of said period, even if there had been one therefor.

It is urged that Angel Villarica had not refused to execute the
aforementioned instrument. However, he was merely a formal party in
case G. R. No. L-15801, he having been included as defendant therein as
the husband of Mrs. Villarica, the main party defendant, the property
involved in the litigation being claimed by her sister Miss Gil as part
of the estate left by their (Mrs. Villarica and Miss Gil’s) parents. He
could not have executed, therefore, the requisite deed, without the
concurrence of Mrs. Villarica.

The other errors assigned in G. R. No. L-15801 are, however, well
taken substantially. The decision therein rendered and the writ of
execution issued did not state what specific portion of Lot No. 59-C
was to be conveyed to Miss Gil. The sheriff had no authority,
therefore, to determine such portion and, accordingly, the lower court
erred in denying appellants’ motion to the effect that the sheriff be
ordered to submit a report on his actuations in connection with the
execution of the deed of conveyance of a particular portion of Lot No.
59-C, in order that the propriety of the subdivision thereof and of the
conveyance of subdivision Lots Nos. 59-C-1 and 59-C-2, could be passed
upon. The lower court, likewise, erred in granting ex-parte the motion
of Miss Gil for an alias writ of execution to satisfy the costs,
including the fees of the surveyor for the subdivision of said Lot No.
59-C and those of the sheriff for the execution of the deed of
conveyance in favor of Miss Gil.

The appeal in case G. R. No. L-15801 is, upon the other hand,
untenable. The relief against the questioned acts of the sheriff, in
connection with the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 1160,
should be sought in such case, by appeal from the order of the lower
court denying said relief and this is the object of G. R. No. L-15799.

Similarly, said acts of the sheriff did not affect the jurisdiction
of the Municipal Court of Davao City over the unlawful detainer case
against appellants herein. The decision therein rendered by said court
was valid and binding, and appellants’ remedy was, consequently, to
appeal from said decision, not to bring a separate action for its
annulment.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from in Case G. R. No. L-15801 is
affirmed, with costs against the appellants, and the order of the lower
courts, in case G. R. No. L-15799, dated September 7, 1957, is
reversed, and the records of said case are remanded to the Court of
First Instance of Davao for further proceedings, not inconsistent with
this decision. Appellee, Concepcion Palma Gil shall pay the costs of
the appeal in said case G. R. No. L-15799. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., on leave.