G.R. No. L-46942. February 06, 1979
ROMULA MABALE, FILOMENO TAMALA, FE MANGOMPIT TAMALA, GENARA MANGOMPIT ETOC AND NESTOR MANGOMPIT, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK, PRESIDING JUDGE CFI, BRANCH I, DIPO…
AQUINO, J.:
Romula Mabale
and her children, Nestor Mangompit, Genara Mangompit-Etoc and Fe Mangompit-Tamala, and her son-in-law, Filomeno
Tamala, appealed under Republic Act No. 5440 from the
resolution or order dated July 6, 1977
of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte
in Civil Case No. 2711 entitled “Tan Tian Tiong vs. Romula Mabale“.
In that order, the lower court ordered Romula
Mabale and her children and children-in-law to vacate
Lot No. 1592, a homestead or coconut land, with an area of eleven hectares
located at Baliangao, Misamis
Occidental, and not to disturb Tan Tian Tiong “from the enjoyment” of the lot.
It may be observed that since the petitioners imputed to the
trial court grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, their
petition also partakes of the nature of a special civil action of certiorari.
The disposition of this case was rendered difficult by the
failure of the parties to make an orderly and chronological statement of the antecedental facts.
A time-consuming and laborious examination of the pleadings had to be
made in order to ascertain the factual bases for this adjudication.
The record discloses that Romula Mabale, a widow and a resident of Barrio Sinaad, Sapang Dalaga, Misamis Occidental, was
the registered owner of Lot No. 1592 as shown in Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-943 issued to her in 1966. On May 10, 1973 she sold that lot under pacto de retro for P10,000
to Lagrimas Lim, the wife of Tan Tian
Tiong.
Romula was also the owner of an
eight-hectare lot located at Barrio Sipaon, Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte which
she also sold under pacto de retro to Lagrimas Lim for P14,000 on July 11, 1969.
Romula failed to exercise her right of
redemption under the two pacto de retro
sales. To consolidate their ownership
over those two lots, the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim sued Romula Mabale in September, 1975
in Civil Case No. 2710 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
del Norte (referring to the Sipaon lot) and in Civil
Case No. 3131 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental (referring to Baliangao Lot No. 1592).
Also in September, 1975, Tan Tian Tiong sued Romula in the Court of
First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte for the
recovery of the sum of P22,250 representing the
amounts which she received from Tan Tian Tiong in 1972, 1973 and 1974 for the purchase of
copra. The suit was filed
because she did not deliver to Tan Tian Tiong any copra nor returned the money to him.
That third case, Civil Case No. 2711, did not reach the trial
stage because the parties and their lawyers submitted to the lower court a
compromise agreement dated April 22,
1976. The compromise
purported to settle not only Civil Case No. 2711 but also the aforementioned Civil
Cases Nos. 2710 and 3131. For
reference, the compromise is reproduced below:
“Republic of
the Philippines
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBO. NORTE
16th Judicial
District
BRANCH I –
DIPOLOG
TAN TIAN TIONG,
Plaintiff, CIVIL
CASE NO. 2711
–versus– For:
RECOVERY OF
ROMU LA MABALE, SUM OF MONEY
Defendant.
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
COME now parties with assistance of their counsel and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully allege:
1.
That the parties herein are
likewise parties in Civil Case No. 2710, entitled Lagrimas
Lim Tan and Tan Tian Tiong
vs. Romula Mabale for Consolidation
of Ownership pending before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
del Norte, Branch III, and in Civil Case No. 3131, entitled Lagrimas
Lim Tan and Tan Tian Tiong
vs. Romula Mabale for
Consolidation of Ownership, pending before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, 16th Judicial District, Branch I, Oroquieta City;
2.
That the parties in these three
(3) cases have hereby agreed to consolidate its settlement under the following
terms and conditions:
A. That the defendant Romula Mabale herein hereby agrees to fully pay and settle the sum
of FORTY SIX THOUSAND (P46,000.00). PESOS, Philippine Currency on or before July
22, 1976, at Dipolog City, Philippines, to the
spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan;
B. That should defendant Romula Mabale herein fail to fully pay and settle the sum of P46,000.00 on or (before) July 22, 1976 to the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan, she hereby agrees to cede, transfer, and
convey a parcel of land, Lot No. 1592 (Baliangao)
situated at Sinang, Sapang Dalaga, Misamis Occidental, which
is fully planted to coconuts that are fully fruit-bearing, under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-943, containing an area of 11.0391 hectares,
registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Misamis
Occidental registered in the name of Romula Mabale, to the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan;
PROVIDED, that the spouses Tan Tian
Tiong likewise agree to fully pay and settle the
accounts of Romula Mabale
to the Development Bank of the Philippines, Ozamiz
City Branch, at Ozamiz City, in the sum of P20,000.00
together with all the interests thereon;
PROVIDED, FURTHER, that should the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan become the absolute owner of the parcel of
land described herein they hereby agree to resell, recede, retransfer and reconvey the said parcel of land to Romula
Mabale or to any or all of her children upon payment
of the sum of P46,000.00 and all amounts which the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan pay to the Development Bank of the
Philippines, Ozamiz City Branch, at Ozamiz City as full payment and settlement of the
outstanding accounts of Romula Mabale
thereat, within the period of FIVE (5) YEARS;
PROVIDED, FINALLY, that if Romula
Mabale or any or all of her children will fail to
fully pay the spouses Tan Tian Tiong
and Lagrimas Lim Tan the sum of P46,000.00
and the amount which the said spouses, pay to the Development Bank of the
Philippines, Ozamiz City Branch, at Ozamiz City, within the period of FIVE (5) YEARS the title
of said land shall then become absolutely vested in the names of the spouses
Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan;
3. That by virtue of the agreement entered into between the
parties mentioned above-they hereby agree to respectively withdraw their
actions, claims or counterclaims against each other in Civil Case No. 2710,
entitled Lagrimas Lim Tan and Tan Tian
Tiong vs. Romula Mabale, pending in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III, Dipolog
City and Civil Case No. 3131, entitled Lagrimas Lim
Tan and Tan Tian Tiong vs. Romula Mabale pending before the
Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch
I, Oroquieta City.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court:
1.
That Romula
Mabale be ordered to fully pay and settle the sum of
P46,000.00 to the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan on or
before July 22, 1976; or
2.
That should Romula
Mabale fail to fully pay and settle the sum of P46,000.00 to the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan on or
before July 22, 1976
at Dipolog City,
to order the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-943 which was
issued in the name of Romula Mabale
by the Register of Deeds of Misamis Occidental at Oroquieta City and to issue in lieu thereof Transfer
Certificate of Title in the names of the spouses Tan Tian
Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan;
to order the spouses Tan Tian Tiong
and Lagrimas Lim Tan to fully pay and settle the
accounts of Romula Mabale
to the Development Bank of the Philippines, Ozamiz
City Branch, at Ozamiz City in the sum of P20,000.00
together with all interest thereof; and to order the annotation at the back of
said Transfer Certificate of Title to be issued in the names of the spouses Tan
Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Tan the following terms:
That if Romula Mabale
or any or all her children pay to the spouses Tan Tian
Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan
the sum of P46,000.00 and the amount which the spouses Tan Tian
Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan
pay to the Development Bank of the Philippines, Ozamiz
City Branch, at Ozamiz City, within the period of
FIVE (5) YEARS from the issuance of said Transfer Certificate of Title in their
names, the ownership of the said parcel of land shall automatically be vested
in Romula Mabale, or any or
all of her children; and that should Romula Mabale or any or all of her children fail to fully pay the
spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan the sum of P46,000.00 and the amount which
the said spouses pay to the Development Bank of the Philippines, Ozamiz City Branch, Ozamiz City,
within a period of 5 years the title to said land shall then become absolutely
vested in the names of the spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan; and
3. To render judgment pursuant to this amicable settlement and
without cause.
Dipolog
City, Philippines,
April 22, 1976.
(SGD) LAGRIMAS LIM TAN (SGD)
TAN TIAN TIONG
Wife of the
Plaintiff
Plaintiff
(SGD) ROMULA MABALE
Defendant
(SGD) PACIFICO
C. CIMAFRANCA (SGD)
FRANCISCO REALIZA, Jr.
Atty. for the
plaintiff Counsel
for the Defendant
Pinana,
Zamboanga del Norte Dipolog City”
On that date, April 22,
1976, when the compromise agreement was signed, it was submitted to
the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental which
in its order issued on April 28, dismissed Civil Case No. 3131, a case
for consolidation of ownership over Lot No. 1592, one of the three cases
compromised by Romula Mabale
and Tan Tian Tiong.
The record does not show whether the compromise was submitted in
Civil Case No. 2710 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, another case for consolidation of
ownership over another lot of Romula Mabale.
The compromise was submitted to that same court in Civil Case No.
2711. In that case, the lower
court, pursuant to the compromise, rendered a judgment dated June 18, 1976, ordering Romula Mabale to pay the spouses
Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim Tan the sum of P46,000
on or before July 22, 1976. If no payment was made and Romula failed to transfer to the Tan Tian
Tiong spouses Lot No. 1592, then the spouses may file
a motion for the cancellation of TCT No. T-943 and for the
issuance to them of a new title for that lot.
It was further ordered in that judgment based on the compromise
that after a new title is issued to the spouses, they would pay to the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Romula’s
debt amounting to P20,000 plus interest and other
charges and that she and any of her children could repurchase the said lot
within five years from April 22, 1976 by paying P46,000 plus the expenses
incurred by the spouses in settling Romula’s
obligation to the DBP.
At this juncture, it should be emphasized that, by virtue of that
compromise and the judgment approving it, Romula Mabale was given three months (April 22 to July 22, 1976)
within which to settle her total indebtedness of P46,000
to the spouses Tan Tian Tiong
and Lagrimas Lim.
In case of nonpayment, Lot No. 1592 would be transferred to the said
spouses as a payment of that debt and Romula’s debt
of P20,000 to the DBP, or as a dacion
en pago, but she could repurchase that lot from
the said spouses within a five-year period ending on April 21, 1981.
In other words, Lot No. 1592, instead of being conveyed to the
spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim for P10,000,
the price at which Romula sold it in 1973 under pacto de retro to Lagrimas
Lim, would in effect be sold to them for more than P66,000. As noted above, she had failed to redeem Lot
No. 1592 from Lagrimas Lim. Consequently, Civil Case No. 3131 was filed
against her for the consolidation of the ownership over that lot by the vendee a
retro, Lagrimas Lim.
The compromise enabled Romula to
reacquire her eight-hectare lot (distinct from Lot No. 1592) which she had sold
under pacto de retro to Lagrimas Lim for P14,000 and which she had not redeemed
within the stipulated period (Civil Case No. 2710).
We should not lose sight of these aspects of the compromise in
order to dispel the erroneous impression that it was unduly favorable to the spouses
Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim and prejudicial to Romula
Mabale.
Romula did not pay the sum of P46,000 as stipulated in the compromise agreement. To enforce the judgment based on that
compromise, the lower court issued on September 1, 1976 a writ of execution
requiring the DBP to accept from Tan Tian Tiong the payment of Romula’s
debt and ordering the register of deeds of Misamis
Occidental to issue a new title to Tan Tian Tiong for Lot No. 1592 with the annotation of her right
to repurchase it.
Tan Tian Tiong
paid to the DBP on September 7, 1976 the sum of P21,101.81
on account of Romula’s debt of P20,000. Because of that payment and in conformity
with the writ of execution, Romula’s title to Lot
No. 1592 was cancelled and a new one, TCT No. T-5815 (5818) was issued to Tan Tian Tiong on September 10, 1976.
The lower court also issued a writ of possession dated
November 8, 1976 commanding the sheriff to eject Romula
Mabale from Lot No. 1592 (p. 59, Rollo). The sheriff turned over the possession of the
lot to a representative of Lagrimas Lim. However, because Romula
did not vacate Lot No. 1592, Tan Tian Tiong filed a petition dated December 31, 1976 to declare
her and “all the persons acting under her” in contempt of
court.
She opposed that petition on the grounds that the compromise was
vitiated by fraud; that Tan Tian Tiong,
being an alien, was disqualified to acquire Lot No. 1592; that the transfer to
him of that lot, which originally was a homestead, was in violation of the
Public Land Law, and that the said lot was owned by her children.
The record further discloses that Romula’s
eight children, Fe, Amador, Napoleon, Luisa, Genara,
Conrado, Nestor and Jesus, all surnamed Mangompit, filed a complaint dated December 3, 1976 in the
Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental,
praying that the spouses, Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim, be
ordered to reconvey to them Lot No. 1592 (Civil Case
No. 3216).
About six months later, Romula Mabale and her eight children filed in the same court an
action to rescind the amicable settlement and annul the judgment based thereon
which was rendered in Civil Case No. 2711 (Civil Case No. 3256).
Thereafter, Romula Mabale
filed in Civil Case No. 2711 a petition to suspend the contempt proceeding on
the ground that it is criminal in nature and, consequently, a prejudicial
question is allegedly involved in Civil Case No. 3256.
As already stated, the lower court in its order of July 6, 1977
ordered Romula Mabale and
all the persons claiming under her (including her children and son-in-law) to
vacate Lot No. 1592 for which a new title had already been issued to Tan Tian Tiong. The lower court held that the judgment based
on the compromise was not tainted with fraud and that a contempt charge is not
a criminal offense. It announced that if
the lot is not vacated within thirty days from notice, it would continue with
the contempt proceeding.
A copy of that order was received by Romula
Mabale on August 5, 1977. On September 3, 1977, she mailed to this
Court her petition under Republic Act No. 5440 for the review of the said order
of the lower court.
The issues are (1) whether the lower court’s judgment based on
the compromise is valid and executory and (2) whether
a contempt proceeding is proper in view of the failure of Romula
Mabale, her children and son-in-law to vacate Lot No.
1592.
We hold that that judgment is binding and conclusive upon
her. Its enforcement or execution,
already begun, may be completed. Of
course, the compromise in question is not a flawless agreement. Its caption should have included Civil Cases
Nos. 2710 and 3131. Its terms could have
been couched in less involuted language. Its provisions could have been simpler and
more concise. And before rendering
judgment, the trial court should have held a hearing and asked Romula Mabale categorically in
open court whether she understood the stipulations of the compromise.
We have underscored time and again that the trial court should
scrutinize a compromise agreement with utmost care and circumspection so as to
obviate misunderstanding and controversy when later on it is sought to be
implemented (Rañeses vs. Teves,
L-26854, March 4, 1976, 70 SCRA 4).
Notwithstanding those deficiencies, the compromise and the
judgment based thereon are valid and effective.
Romula was assisted by her lawyer when she
signed the compromise. She was
personally furnished with a copy of the judgment approving it. As already noted, that judgment, which was rendered
on June 18, 1976, had already been partly executed.
“A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority
of res judicata.”
A judicial compromise may be enforced by writ of execution. However, a compromise in which there is
mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of
documents may be annulled. If a party
fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party may either
enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original
demand (Arts. 2037, 2038 and 2041, Civil Code).
A judgment based upon a compromise is more than a mere contract
and, with more reason, it has also the force of res
judicata.
Without legal cause, it cannot be unilaterally repudiated by a party (Katipunan Labor Union vs. Caltex
[Philippines], Inc., 101 Phil. 1224).
As a rule, “a judgment on compromise is not appealable and is immediately executory
unless a motion is filed to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, in which event an appeal may be taken from the order denying
the motion” (De los Reyes vs. Ugarte, 75 Phil. 505 and Enriquez vs. Padilla; 77 Phil.
373).
As noted in the Ugarte case, the
reason for the rule is that when both parties enter into an agreement to end a
pending litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said
agreement, it is only natural to presume that such action constitutes an
implicit waiver of the right to appeal from the decision which waiver is as
undeniable as an express waiver. For a
party to a compromise to reserve the right to appeal from the said decision
“is to adopt an attitude of bad faith which courts cannot
countenance.”
To be entitled to appeal from a judgment approving a compromise,
a party must move not only to set aside the judgment but also to annul or set
aside the compromise itself on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress vitiating
his consent to the compromise (Serrano vs. Reyes, 110 Phil. 536, 542). To set it aside under Rule 38 of the Rules of
Court, the petition for relief must be filed within six months from the date
the judgment was entered (Bodiogan vs. Ceniza, 102 Phil. 750).
Romula Mabale
did not seasonably move for the setting aside of the compromise and the
judgment based upon it. Instead, her
children pretending to be the unregistered owners of Lot No. 1592, filed
a separate action against Tan Tian Tiong and his wife for the recovery of Lot No. 1592 (Civil
Case No. 3216). Romula
and her children filed a second case to rescind the compromise and annul the
judgment (Civil Case No. 3256).
In this appeal from respondent Judge’s order in Civil Case No.
2711, upholding the compromise and the judgment based thereon, Romula Mabale contends that Tan Tian Tiong, being an alien, was
incapacitated to acquire Lot No. 1592.
That contention is wrong.
Before approving the compromise, the trial court required Tan Tian Tiong to prove his
Philippine citizenship. He submitted to
the court a certified copy of his Certificate of Naturalization No. 32 issued
by the clerk of court of the lower court on March 18, 1968 in Naturalization
Case No. R-50 together with his oath of allegiance of the
same date. His Philippine
citizenship is an indisputable fact.
Another contention of Romula Mabale is that as a member of the cultural minority she
could not be divested of Lot No. 1592 without the intervention of the proper
government agency. She submitted a
certification of the provincial development officer of the governor’s office of
Misamis Occidental stating that she belongs to the Subanon tribe and, as such, she is a member of the
National Cultural Communities.
Without so specifying, Romula Mabale’s counsel is referring to section 145(b) of the
Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu and section
120 of the Public Land Law which require approval by
the competent authority of conveyances of real property made by
non-Christians. (See Mangayao
vs. Lasud, 120 Phil. 154.)
That question was not raised in the lower court. It is not adequately argued in petitioner’s
memorandum. The fact is that in Romula’s prior transactions regarding Lot No. 1592 she did
not regard herself as a Non-Christian who should be assisted by the provincial
governor.
Thus, she mortgaged that lot to the Philippine National Bank and
the DBP without the intervention and assistance of any government agency. Her verification of the pleadings in this
case shows that she can legibly sign her name.
She does not appear to be illiterate.
The compromise in question was approved by the lower court. Under these circumstances, Romula is estopped to invoke
section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu.
Another contention of Romula Mabale is that her children were the owners of Lot No. 1592
which they had in fact partitioned. That
alleged partition was not annotated on TCT No. T-943 wherein
it is indubitably indicated that Romula was the
registered owner of Lot No. 1592.
That title was superseded by the new title issued to Tan Tian Tiong.
The contention of Romula Mabale that fraud vitiated her consent to the compromise
cannot be taken seriously. She raised
that question for the first time in her petition dated June 27, 1977 to suspend
the contempt proceeding and in her complaint dated June 17, 1977 in Civil Case
No. 3256. She raised
that issue after the judgment based on the compromise had been partly executed.
Her present counsel conjectured that there was fraud because
Civil Case No. 2711 involved only the sum of P22,250
whereas Romula’s total obligation, as set forth in
the compromise agreement, amounted to P46,000. Her counsel overlooked that, aside from the
sum of P22,250, Romula had
contracted to redeem for P24,000 from Lagrimas Lim
(Tan Tian Tiong’s wife) Lot
No. 1592 and another lot. Consequently,
in the compromise agreement, her obligation was computed at P46,000. Tan Tian Tiong condoned the sum of
P250.
With respect to the contempt proceeding, the question is whether
under the judgment based on the compromise the lower court could issue a writ
of possession (as distinguished from a writ of execution) so as to eject from
Lot No. 1592 Romula Mabale
and “all the persons acting under her”.
The compromise and the judgment are silent as to the transfer of
possession to Tan Tian Tiong
in the event that Lot No. 1592 is registered in his name.
In that connection, it should be borne in mind that the law
specifies when a writ of possession may be issued. That writ is available (1) in a land
registration proceeding, which is a proceeding in rem
(Sec. 17, Act No. 496; Estipona vs. Navarro, L-41825,
January 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 285, 291); (2) in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a
realty mortgage (Sec. 7, Act No. 3135); (3) in a judicial foreclosure of
mortgage, a quasi in rem proceeding, provided
that the mortgagor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third
person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened (Rivera vs. Court
of First Instance of Nueva Ecija
and Rupac, 61 Phil. 201; Ramos vs. Mañalac and Lopez, 89 Phil. 270, 275) and (4) in execution
sales (last par. of sec. 35, Rule 39, Rules of Court).
Since the instant case does not fall among the cases mentioned
above, the issuance of the writ of possession was not proper (Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, L-35615
and L-41360, February 17, 1977, 75 SCRA 234, 244).
Moreover, the writ of possession was addressed to the sheriff
(p. 59, Rollo).
Hence, the petitioners herein could not have been guilty of disobeying
that writ and, therefore, they could not be held liable for contempt of court
(Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, supra;
Mendoza vs. Alano and Salceda,
112 Phil. 445; U.S. vs. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183).
In the ultimate analysis, the issue is whether because Tan Tian Tiong is now the registered
owner of Lot No. 1592 by virtue of the judgment based on the compromise, the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in
Civil Case No. 2711 can order Romula Mabale to deliver the possession of that lot to Tan Tian Tiong in spite of the pendency of Civil Case No. 3256 in the Misamis
Occidental Court for the annulment of the said judgment.
We hold that if the claim of Romula Mabale, her children and son-in-law to retain possession of
Lot No. 1592 is based merely on her ownership, which was terminated by the
issuance of a new title to Tan Tian Tiong, then the trial court, to avoid multiplicity of
suits, may order her, her children and son-in-law (the petitioners herein) to
vacate that lot. Squarely applicable to
the situation herein is the following ruling:
“Judgment; When Adjudication of Ownership does not
Include Possession; Case at Bar. – The
adjudication of ownership does not include possession of the property where
the actual possessor has a valid right over the property enforceable even
against the owner thereof. An example is
the case of tenants and lessees. This
doctrine, however, may not be invoked in instances where no such right may be
appreciated in favor of the possessor.
“In the instant case, considering that appellants have no
other claim to the possession of the property in question, apart from their
claim of ownership which was rejected by the lower court and, consequently,
have no right to remain therein after such ownership was adjudged to appellees, the delivery of possession of the land should
be considered included in the adjudication.
“Indeed, it would be defeating the ends of justice should
the appellees be required to submit to court
litigations anew in order to obtain possession of the property duly adjudged to
be theirs, from those who have no right to remain therein.” (Syllabus, Perez and Alcantara vs. Evite and Manigbas, 111 Phil.
564).
In the instant case, there is no showing that the petitioners
can justify their right to possess Lot No. 1592 on a ground distinct from their
claim of ownership which claim, as noted above, cannot be sustained because the
title over that lot is now in Tan Tian Tiong’s name.
Petitioners’ last contention is that a prejudicial question is
involved in Civil Case No. 3256 because the contempt proceeding against them
is criminal in nature. We have already
ruled that the contempt proceeding is not proper against the petitioners since
the writ of possession was directed to the sheriff and not to them.
Moreover, the supposed contempt is not criminal in nature. It is civil in nature because it consists in
the failure to do something for the benefit of a party (3 Moran’s Comments on
the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 343). Petitioners’ theory that a prejudicial
question is involved in Civil Case No. 3256 and that, for that reason, the
contempt proceeding in Civil Case No. 2711 should be suspended, is not correct.
WHEREFORE, the lower court’s resolution ordering Romula Mabale and all those
holding under her to vacate Lot No. 1592 is affirmed but with the modification
that they should deliver the possession of the said lot to Tan Tian Tiong within sixty (60) days
from the date this judgment becomes final.
No costs.’
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, J., (Chairman), concurs
with the main opinion and the reservation in
the concurrence of J. Barredo.
Barredo, J., concur subject
to the terms of the compromise agreement reserving certain rights to the
petitioners.
Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., abstain.