NILDA SURA, IN HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD VICENTE MARTIN, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965,
of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
ordering the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant, Vicente Martin, Sr., for
contempt, “hasta que cumpla con la decision dictada, en esta causa.”

Appellant’s statement of facts, accepted by the appellee, is as follows:

“In Civil Case No. 5580 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental entitled, ‘NILDA SURA, In her behalf and
in behalf of her minor child, VICENTE MARTIN, JR., Plaintiffs, versus VICENTE
SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR., Defendant’, judgment was rendered on June 20, 1961,
amended on July 15, 1961, as follows:

‘EN MERITOS DE TODO LO EXPUESTO, el Juzgado
falls esta causa coma sigue:

(a) Se sobresee el primer motivo de accion de la demanda;

(b) Se ordena al demandado
a que reconozca al demandante Vicente Martin, Jr. como su hijo natural; y

(c) Se condena al demandado
pagar al demandante Vicente
Martin, Jr., alimentos atrasados
a razon de P100.00 mensuales
a contar desde el dia 10 de Diciembre de 1959, fecha de la presentacion de la demanda, y a pasar al mismo
demandante una pension mensual de P100.00 hasta que el misnollegue a la mayor edad.

(d) Se condena al demandado
a pagar los honorarios del
abbgado de las demandantes en la cantidad de P1,000.00.

Las costas del presente
juicio seran pagadas por el demandado.

Asi se ordena.

Ciudad de Bacolod, Julio 15, 1961.

(Fdo) EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

Juez’

“‘From the above judgment, the defendant appealed to the Court
of Appeals, and the latter Court, in C.A. G.R.No.
30388-R, affirmed said decision on January 30, 1964.

“On May 9, 1964, the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
issued the following order:

‘Upon petition of counsel for the plaintiff, the Clerk of Court is
hereby ordered to issue writ of execution, same be forwarded to the Provincial
Sheriff of Negros Oriental.

SO ORDERED.

Bacolod City, Philippines, May 9, 1964.

(Sgd.) JOSE R. QUERUBIN

Judge’

Pursuant to this aforecited order, a writ
of execution was issued on May 9, 1964 by the Clerk of Court, and the
Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental served the same
upon the defendant in Tanjay, Negros
Oriental but returned the writ unsatisfied.  The
second paragraph of the Sheriff’s return of service, dated September 21, 1964, stated:

‘The judgment debtor is jobless, and is residing in the dwelling
house and in the company of his widowed mother, at Tanjay,
this province.  Debtor has no leviable property; he is even supported by his mother.  Hereto attached is the certificate of
insolvency issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Tanjay, Negros
Oriental, where debtor legally resides.’

“On October 6, 1964,
counsel for the plaintiff prayed that defendant, for failure to satisfy the
writ of execution, be adjudged guilty of contempt of Court.  On November 28, 1964, the Court issued the
following order:

‘A U T O

A peticion del abogado
Sr. Villasis que representa al demandado, y con la
conformidad del, abogado
Sr. Tupaz, por el presente se le concede al demandado
un plazo de 30 dias a contar desde esta fecha,
para,cumplir con la decision de este
Juzgado antes de que se le
declare en desacato.

Asi se ordena.

Ciudad de Bacolod, Noviembre 28, 1964.

(Fdo) EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

Juez‘

“The defendant having failed-to satisfy said order, the Court
on January 9, 1965 issued the fol­lowing’order:

‘A U T O

Habiendo dejado
de cumplir con la orden de este Juzgado
de fecha 28 de Noviembre de
1964, por el presente se ordena el arresto del demandado Vicente Silvestre, Sr.

Asi se ordena.

Ciudad de Bacolod, Enero 9, 1965.

EDUARDO D.
ENRIQUEZ

Juez‘

“Notice of appeal from the last aforecited
order was filed on January 26, 1965
by attorney for the defendant who at the same time prayed for the fixing of a bond for the temporary re­lease of
the defendant.  On February 1, 1965, the Court issued the following
order:

‘A U T O

Oidas y consideradas
las explicaciones, dadas por el demandado
en la silla testifi­cal el dia 28 de Noviembre de 1964, y no
encontrando biers fundadas las razones alegadas
por.el, por el presente se ordena el confinamiento de dicho demandado en la carcel provincial
hasta que cumpla con la decision dictada en
esta causa. Se fija en P7,000.00 la fianza que el demandado
debe prestar si desea apelar
contra la orden dictada en esta misma fecha.

Asi se ordena.

Ciudad de Bacolod, February 1, 1965.

EDUARDO D.
ENRIQUEZ

Juez‘

The orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant,
Vicente Martin, Sr., for contempt of court for failure to satisfy the judgment
were illegal, in view of the following considerandos:

(1) The judgment ordering the defendant to pay past and future
support at P100 per month was a final disposition of the case and was
declaratory of the obligation of the defendant. 
The writ of execution issued on the judgment with respect to past support
in the amount of about P6,000 required “the sheriff or other proper
officer” to whom it was directed (Rule 39, Section 8, Rules
of Court) to satisfy the amount out of all property, real and personal, of the
judgment debtor in the manner specified in Rule 39, Section 15, of the Rules of Court.  The writ of execution was, therefore, a
direct order to the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed,
and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the judgment debtor could
not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the
writ.

(2) The sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor was
insolvent.  Hence the Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965, in effect, authorized his imprisonment
for debt in violation of the Constitution.

(3) The disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt
in Section 3(b) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, does not refer to a judgment
which is a final disposition of the
case and which is declaratory of
the rights of the parties, but to a special judgment, which is defined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court as a judgment “which requires the
performance of any other act than the payment of money, or the sale or delivery
of real or personal property.

According to Moran:

“Generally, any order or judgment of a court finally disposing
of an action should be enforced by ordinary execution proceedings, except
special judgments which should be executed by contempt proceedings in accordance with Rule 39,
sec. 9,” citing, Caluag, et al. vs. Pecson, et
al., 82 Phil., 8. (Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1963 Ed., Vol. 3, p. 320.)

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed Orders of
January 9 and February 1, 1965, are hereby
reversed.  No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.