THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF PILI, CAMARINES SUR, BALBINO ONQUIT AND FELIX ONQUIT, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES…

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the
decision of respondent Judge Palacio in Civil Case No. 3909 of the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, and to order him to return
the case to the Justice of the Peace Court of Pili, Camarines Sur.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. Balbino Onquit lost a
carabao sometime in February, 1946. In December of that year, Honesto
Paladin bought a carabao for P100.00 from one Jovito Milarpis, who in
turn had bought the same animal from Vicente Baduya that same day.
Almost ten years later, that is, on April 18, 1956, Balbino Onquit saw
the carabao bought by Paladin in December 1946, and in the latter’s
possession, and supposedly recognized it to be the animal he had lost
about ten years before; so, he reported the matter to the Chief of
Police of Pili, who immediately impounded the animal and gave its
custody to the Municipal Treasurer of the said town.

On April 28, 1956, Paladin filed an action for replevin in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Pili, Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 66),
against Balbino Onquit, Felix Onquit, and the Chief of Police of Pili,
to recover possession of the carabao. The Justice of the Peace Court
decided the case in favor of the defendants. Paladin appealed the case
to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 3453),
which in a decision dated January 14, 1957, reversed the appealed
decision and ordered that the carabao involved be returned to plaintiff
Paladin. After said decision had become final and executory, Paladin
demanded the delivery of the carabao to him, but the Municipal
Treasurer refused to deliver.

Instead of having the decision executed by the proper authorities,
Paladin would appear to have done nothing, possibly waiting for the
Municipal Treasurer to, change his mind. But on April 13, 1957, instead
of filing a motion to enforce the judgment in his favor which had long
become final and executory, he filed another Civil Case No. 87 in the
same Justice of the Peace Court of Pili, against the Municipal
Treasurer, Balbino Onquit and Felix Onquit, making reference to Civil
Case No. 66 of the Justice of the Peace Court and the decision in Civil
Case No. 3453, Court of First Instance, in his favor, and asking that
the same carabao be returned to him and that defendants Onquit be made
to pay him the sum of P1,500.00 as damages. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of res adjudicata and estoppel.
Acting upon said motion, the Justice of the Peace Court dismissed the
case, stating that it was without prejudice on the part of Paladin to
file a motion for execution, on the ground that the decision in the
first case had already become final and executory, at the same time
ruling that the Municipal Treasurer, one of the defendants, had no
interest in the case.

Paladin appealed the order of dismissal to the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur. Defendants-appellees failed to file their
answer to the complaint and were declared in default. Paladin was
allowed to present his evidence in their absence and respondent Judge
Palacio, presiding the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur,
rendered the decision aforementioned, ordering the defendants Balbino
Onquit and Felix Onquit to deliver the carabao and its offspring to the
plaintiff and to pay the latter the sum of P1,500.00 as moral and.
consequential damages, plus costs. Defendants filed two motions for
reconsideration which were denied. Thereafter, they filed the present
petition for certiorari and mandamus.

It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent Judge acted
in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
trying the case appealed to him for the reason that under Section 10,
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which reads as follows:

“Sec. 10. Appellate powers of Courts of First Instance where action not tried on its merits by inferior courts.—Where
the action has been disposed of by an inferior court upon a question of
law and not after a valid trial upon the merits, the Court of First
Instance, shall on appeal review the ruling of the inferior court and
may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of reversal, the
case shall be remanded for further proceedings.”

he should have remanded the case to the Justice of the Peace Court
of Pili for further proceedings after he evidently had reversed the
ruling of said Justice of the Peace Court, dismissing the case. We
agree with petitioners. According to Section 10, Rule 40 of the Rules
of Court, where a Justice of the Peace Court disposes of a case not on
its merits but on a question of law, as when it dismisses it, and it is
appealed to the Court of First Instance, the latter may either affirm
or reverse the ruling or order of dismissal. In the present case, it
presumably reverses said order; instead of trying the case on the
merits, at it did, it should, have returned the same to the Justice of
the Peace Court for further proceedings.^[1]

In view of the foregoing, the petition is granted. The decision of
respondent Judge is hereby set aside and he is directed to remand the
case to the Justice of the Peace Court for further proceedings. No
costs.

Although we are ordering the remand of the case by respondent Judge
to the Justice of the Peace Court, nevertheless, there is reason to
believe that said case is already barred on the ground of res adjudicata
and that the Justice of the Peace Court was correct in dismissing the
same. If the plaintiff seeks damages due to the failure of the
defendants in the first case to deliver the carabao to him within a
reasonable time after said decision became final and executory a
separate action might be necessary, not for the delivery of the
carabao, but for damages suffered, if any, after the rendition of that
decision.

As to the delivery of the carabao, the decision of the Court of First
Instance in Civil Case No. 3453 in favor of plaintiff Paladin was
rendered on January 14, 1957. Within five years thereafter, Paladin may
yet file a motion for its execution. This is what he should have done,
instead of filing the second case, Civil Case No. 87, in the Justice of
the Peace Court.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result.

---

^[1] Mirano vs. Diaz, 75 Phil., 274; Saavedra vs. Pecson, 76 Phil., 330.