URBANO REYES (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, ESTER PADILLA, ARTURO P. REYES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE O…

In Civil Case No. 567 (for unlawful detainer) filed with the City
Court of Olongapo by Zenaida Soriano against Urbano Reyes, said court, on April 30, 1968
rendered judg­ment as follows:

“It is therefore the judgment of this Court that defendant,
from September, 1965 has been un­lawfully withholding possession of the
property in question and he is hereby ordered to vacate the premises in
question.  Defendant is also hereby
ordered to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
(P3,100.00) Pesos, representing the unpaid rentals for the use and occupancy of the property in question at P100.00, from September 1965 to the present with
interest at 12% per annum
until fully paid.  It is further ordered that
defendant pay to the plaintiff the amount of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS as
moral and exemplary damages.

“It appears that when the defendant was placed in the
possession of premises in question by virtue of the lease aforementioned,
he introduced improvements on the existing structures converting the same into
an automotive repair shop and garage and later used a part of the building, after a few renovation,
as his place of residence.  As it appears that he did so, in good faith,
he may remove so much thereof as may be removed without damage to the premises in question.  The plaintiff, at her option, may retain such improvements by refunding
to the defendant the amount of P1,000.00 which
this court deems to be the reasonable value of defendant’s improvements.

“This decision is rendered without pro­nouncement as to costs.” (underscoring
ours)

On appeal in the Court of
First Instance of Zambales, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No.
361-0, the plaintiff filed a motion for the immediate
execution of the judgment of the City Court of Olongapo by reason of the
failure of the defendant to file the required supersedeas bond and to deposit the monthly rentals that fell due after the rendition of
the judgment.  On July 31,
1968, said court
granted the motion.  His motion for a
reconsideration of said order of July 31, 1968 having been denied, Urbano Reyes filed an action for certiorari and
prohibition in the Court of Appeals (C.A-G.R No. 42026-R) to nullify said order
and to prevent the execution of the judgment of the City Court of Olongapo,
claiming that the Court of First Instance of Zambales
gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its ju­risdiction in ordering the execution thereof.

On July 26,
1969 the Court of
Appeals rendered judgment upholding the validity of the order of July 31,
1968 issued by the
Court of First Instance of Zambales except in so far as it ordered payment by
the petitioner to respondent Ze­naida Soriano of moral and exemplary damages in
the sum of P1,000. 
This decision was modified by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of September 25, 1969, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court dated July 26, 1969, upholding the validity
of the order of the respondent court dated July 31, 1968, directing the execution of the judgment dated April
30, 1968 of the City
Court of Olongapo in Civil Case No. 567 is hereby reiterated.  However, insofar as it includes execution for
the payment of moral damages in the sum of P1,000.00
and another P1,000.00 as reimbursement to petitioners for the total value of
the improvement introduced by the deceased Urbano Reyes, the decision is hereby
modified so as to eliminate these two items.

“As to the question of reimbursement of the value of the
improvements introduced by the deceased petitioner, to be made by res­pondent
Zenaida Soriano in favor of the substi­tuted petitioners, the same shall be
disposed of by the respondent court conformably to law upon deciding the appealed
case on its merits.”

Having failed to secure reconsideration of the reso­lution of the
Court of Appeals last mentioned, petitioners, on October 17, 1969, filed
“a petition for review on certiorari by way of an appeal” of the
resolutions of the Court of Appeals in C.A-G.R No. 42026-R of September 25,
1969 and of August 25 of the same year, claiming that, not having authority to modify and amend the judgment rendered
by the City Court of Olongapo mentioned heretofore, in the action for
certiorari and prohibition before it, the Court of Appeals committed a grave
abuse of discretion or ex­ceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the resolutions
appealed from.

Upon consideration of the allegations made in the basic petition,
this Court, on October 21, 1969,
found the same to be without merit and, as a consequence, “resolved to
deny it”.

On November 12, 1969 petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration claiming, in substance, that upon the facts alleged in their
petition, it was clear that the Court of Appeals, in the action for certiorari
and prohibition before it (C.A-G.R No. 42026-R), had no authority to consider
the merits of the detainer case initiated in the City Court of Olongapo, much
less to amend the decision rendered by said court which was still on
appeal in the Court of First Instance of Zambales, and that, therefore,
the reso­lutions sought to be annulled were void.  Upon this premise they prayed that their
appeal be given due course.

It is to be observed that
the dispositive portion of the resolution of September 25, 1969 quoted above
refers to two different items, namely: 
the P1,000.00 awarded by the City Court of Olongapo as moral and exemplary damages,
and the P1,000.00 awarded as re­imbursement
to petitioners for the total value of the improvements introduced by the
deceased Urbano Reyes.

The respondent Court of Appeals, in its decision promulgated on
July 26, 1969, declared the award of moral and exemplary damages null and void
and, conse­quently, ruled that ‘this amount should not be included in the writ
of execution”, for the simple reason that the City Court of Olongapo had
exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding such damages which do not fall within the
meaning and purview of those mentioned in Section 6, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. 
This ruling – reaffirmed in the same court’s resolution of
September 25, 1969 – is correct, and, as the case before it was an action for
certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul the order of July 31, 1968 issued
by the Court of First Instance of Zambales ordering the execution pending appeal of the decision rendered
by the City Court of Olongapo in Civil Case No. 567 (for unlawful detainer), it
seems clear that the Court of Appeals
acted within its jurisdiction in declaring void the aforementioned portion of the
decision of the latter court.

Upon the other
hand, the resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals of September 25, 1969
clearly provides that the item of P1,000.00 as
reimbursement “shall be dis­posed of by the respondent court conformably
to law upon deciding the appealed case on its merits”, and, as a result,
declared that the item aforesaid should also be eli­minated from the execution
of judgment ordered by the Court
of First Instance of Zambales.  With this We also agree.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners is hereby denied.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., did not take part.