MIGUEL SOCCO REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MARTIN ALVAREZ SOCCO, PLAINTIFF, VS. POTENCIANO PECSON, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MA…

On 6 June 1945, petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of
Manila by Miguel Socco Reyes, in behalf of Martin Alvarez Socco, for
the reconstitution of the record of a case allegedly burnt. An attempt
was made to notify one Francisco Espiritu, the alleged attorney for the
defendants, but in the return of the sheriff it appears that attorney
Francisco Espiritu could not be found at the address given by the
attorney for Martin Alvarez Socco. In lieu of the service of notice
upon the attorney for the defendants, there appears at the bottom of
the petition for reconstitution the following note: “Rec’d. copy:
(Signed) A. Pelayo, June 7, 1945.” A judge presiding over one of the
branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila set the hearing of
the petition for the 27th day of June 1945, at which no one appeared
except the attorney of Martin Alvarez Socco, and right then and there
he submitted copies of the pleadings allegedly filed by the parties and
a copy of the decision purportedly rendered by the court. As there was
no objection, for there was no one to object, to the admission of the
copies of such pleadings and decision, the court declared the record of
the case reconstituted on 27 June 1945. The copy of the decision is
dated 2 November 1941 and it ordered “the defendants to pay the
plaintiff, jointly and solidarily, the sum of P75,000 plus 12 per cent
interest from October 15, 1940 until the full amount is fully paid plus
the sum of P7,500 for attorney’s fees and costs.” The judge who appears
to have rendered the judgment is Arsenio Locsin. In the copies of the
pleadings allegedly filed by the parties and of the decision purportedly
rendered by the court, it appears that Martin Alvarez Socco brought an
action against Tirzo Mori alias Teizo Mori, Pedro Anamura and Dr. Teodisio Yabe alias
Dr. Tadashi Yabe, for the recovery or a sum of money, interest thereon,
attorney’s fees and costs. A motion for exection of the judgment
purpotedly rendered in the case, as it appears int eh reconstituted
record, was granted on 5 July 1945, and on the following day the writ
of execution was issued. Pursuant to the writ the sheriff caused a levy
upon execution ont eh properties of Teizo Moris, and on 13 July 1945 a
memorandum of such levy was noted on teh Torrens certificates of title
on the properties in the name of Teizo Mori. No further action was
taken on the writ of execution, in view of the request of the Enemy
Property Custodian of the U. S. Army, who had seized the properties of
the defendants, to hold the proceedings in connection with the writ of
execution in abeyance until after an agency of the U. S. Government
should have been set up to take over and administrator alien enemy
properties in the Philippines. The Enemy Property Custodian of the
United States. On 31 January 1946, the last named officer vested in him
(Vesting Order No. P-7) the properties of Teizo Mori. When the office
of the Alien Property Custodian was abolished, the properties of Teizo
Mori were transferred on 9 January 1947 to the Philippine Alien
Property Administration. On 20 March 1947, Vesting Order No. P-7 was
filed and recorded in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for
the City of Manila and pursuant to an order of the Court of First
Instance of Manila entered in the record of the Court of First Instance
of Manila entered in the record of the corresponding cadastral case the
Torrens certificates of title issued in the name of Teizo Mori on his
properties were cancelled an din lieu thereof new certificated Nos.
12938 to 12945 were issued in the name of the Philippine Alien Property
Administrator. On 9 June 1947, Miguel Socco Reyes, on behalf of the
late Martin Alvarez Socco, filed a notice of claim for payment of debt
with the Philippine Alien Property Administration, praying that the
money judgment purportedly rendered in civil case No. 64287 be
satisfied out of the properties formerly belonging to Tirzo Mori alias Teizo Mori, Pedro Anamura and Dr. Teodosio Yabe alias
Dr. Tadashi Yabe, covered by Vesting Orders Nos. P-7, P-66 and P-149
respectively, Hearing thereon had already been held before the Vested
Property Claims Committee, but no determination has yet been made by
it. On 13 February 1948, the Philippine Alien Property Administration
and Miguel Socco Reyes, in behalf of Martin Alvarez Socco, filed a
joint petition in the reconstituted record of civil case No. 64287
praying that the order and writ of execution and the levy upon
execution noted on the Torrens certificates of title on the properties
formerly belonging to Teizo Mori be cancelled, which petition was
granted by the court on 17 February 1948. On 24 April 1948, Miguel
Socco Reyes, in behalf of Martin Alvarez Socco, filed a motion praying
that the Philippine Alien Property Administrator be ordered to pay the
claim of the estate of the late Martin Alvarez Socco, which petition
was objected to by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator. On 29
April 1948, the last named officer sold the properties formerly
belonging to Teizo Mori to the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc. for P640,000
and the proceeds realized from the sale thereof are now in his
possession, custody and control. On 25 August 1948, the Court of First
Instance of Manila granted the motion for a writ of execution. On 10
September 1948, in answer to the notice of garnishment served upon him
by the sheriff, the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Philippine Alien
Property Administration stated that he had no property belonging to the
defendant Teizo Mori under his control or proceeds realized from the
sale thereof. On 13 September 1948, Miguel Socco Reyes, in behalf of
Martin Alvarez Socco, filed a motion praying that the Philippine Alien
Property Administrator be held guilty of contempt, examined in
connection wiht the properties of Teizo Mori, and directed to satisfy
or pay the money judgment rendered in civil case No. 64287 as
reconstituted out of the property formerly belonging to Teizo Mori, or
the proceeds realized from the sale thereof. At the hearing of the
petition, the Philippine Alien Property Administrator admitted that the
properties of Teizo Mori were vested in and transferred to him and
later on sold for P640,000 to the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc., and that
the proceeds realized from the sale thereof were then in his
possession, custody and control. On 25 November 1948 a motion similar to
the previous one was filed praying that the Philippine Alien Property
Administrator be ordered to pay within 24 hours from receipt of the
order the money judgment to the estate of the late Martin Alvarez
Socco. On 14 December 1948, both motions were denied, but the court
authorized Miguel Socco Reyes, in behalf of the estate of the late
Martin Alvarez Socco, to institute an action pursuant to section 41,
Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. A motion for reconsideration of the
previous order filed on 31 December 1948 was denied on 4 February 1949.

Thereupon, this petition was filed to annual the order of 14
December 1948 denying the motion of Miguel Socco Reyes filed in behalf
of Martin Alvarez Socco which prayed that the Philippine Alien Property
Administrator be held guilty of contempt, examined in connection with
the properties of Teizo Mori, and directed to satisfy or pay the money
judgment referred to out of the property formerly belonging to Teizo
Mori, or the proceeds realized from the sale thereof, as well as the order of 4 February 1949 denying the motion for reconsideration of the
previous order, on the ground that the money judgment rendered in civil
case No. 64287, as it appears in the reconstituted record, having
become final and executory, the orders complained of constitute an
excess of jurisdiction or a grave abuse of discretino, and to direct
the respondent court to order the Philippine Alien Property
Administrator to satisfy or pay said money judgment.

The Philippine Alien Property Administrator, answering the petition,
pleads that an action against him is in effect against the Government
of the United States of America; that he can only be sued in the courts
of the Republic of the Philippines under and pursuant to the provisions
of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 6 October 1917, as amended, and
the Philippine Property Act of 1946, and in the manner and subject to
the conditions therein provided for; that the proceedings for the
reconstitution of the record of civil case No. 64287 were not done in
accordance with law, for the adverse party was not notified of the
petition for the reconstitution of the record; that the copy of the
judgment purportedly rendered by Judge Arsenio Locsin on 2 November
1941 submitted to the court at the hearing for reconstitution bears on
its face certain suspicious features not noticed at the time of the
hearing on reconstitution of the record of civil case No. 64287 which
render doubtful the existence or the rendition of such judgment on the
date appearing on its face; that because of lack of notice and of the
doubt about the existence or rendition of the money judgment referred
to engendered by such suspicious features appearing on the copy of the
judgment, the order of the court declaring the record of the case
reconstituted is null and void; that inasmuch as at the time of the
reconstitution of the record of the civil case referred to, the alleged
plaintiff therein was already dead, his attorney could not have asked
for the reconstitution thereof without the substitution of the
administrator of the estate of the deceased duly appointed by the court
or his heirs for the deceased party, as provided for in section 17,
Rule 3; that even if the judgment of 2 November 1941 in the
reconstituted record of civil case No. 64287 had really been rendered
and had become final and executory, it could not be executed by means
of a motion, such as that presented by the petitioner on 24 April 1948,
for the reason that more than five years had already elapsed since the
date the judgment sought to be executed had become final and executory.

The answer of the respondent judge is substantially the same as that
of the respondent Philippine Alien Property Administrator. He pleads
further that the copy of the judgment purportedly rendered by the court
on 2 November 1941, as it appears in the reconstituted record of civil
case No. 64287, is fake, fictitious and spurious; that there was no
notice served upon the adverse party of the petition for the
reconstitution of the record, nor was there such notice served upon the
adverse party of the petition for the reconstitution of the record, nor
was there such notice of the motion for execution; that the writ of
execution draws its life form the legality and validity of the order
declaring the record of the case reconstituted; and that the latter
being illegal for lack of service of notice of the petition for
reconstitution upon the adverse party, the writ of execution must of
necessity be without any validity and legal effect.

To determine whether the orders complained of constitute an excess
of jurisdiction or a grave abuse of discretion, there seems to be no
necessity of passing judgment upon several questions raised by the
parties in their pleadings. For instance, there is no need for us to
decide whether a suit against the Philippine Alien Property
Administrator is in effect against the Government of the United States
of America; whether the petitioner’s claim in behalf of the estate of
the late Martin Alvarez Socco is a title or a debt claim, as provided
for in section 9 and 34, respectively, of the Trading with the Enemy
Act of 6 October 1917, as amended; and whether the money judgment in
the reconstituted record of civil case No. 64287 was in fact rendered,
for a pronouncement on these points would bind the court which will
later on try and decide the controversy.

We are, however, satisfied that the proceedings held for the
reconstitution of the record of civil case No. 64287 were irregular for
lack of notice of the petition for reconstitution upon the adverse
party or his attorney. It does not appear that the clerk of the Court
of First Instance of Manila had sent to Miguel Socco Reyes a notice of
the loss or destruction of the record of civil case No. 64287, as
provided for in section 1, Act No. 3110; neither does it appear that
upon receipt of such notice, the court had issued or caused to be
issued a general notice addressed and sent by registered mail to all
lawyers and interested parties, advising them of such loss or
destruction and of the time fixed by Act No. 3110 for the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed records, and that such notice had
been published in the Official Gazette and in one of the
newspapers most widely read in the City of Manila, once a week, for
four consecutive weeks, as provided for in section 2. Act No. 3110; nor
does it appear that within thirty days after receipt of the notice,
Martin Alvarez Socco or his attorney had appeared and filed an
application for the reconstitution of the record of civil case No.
64287, and that the clerk of court, upon receipt of such application,
had sent notice to the adverse party or his attorney of the day, hour
and place when the court was to proceed with the reconstitution, as
provided for in section 3, Act No. 3110. What appears in the petition
for reconstitution is a service of a copy of the petition not by the
clerk of the court of first instance but by Miguel Socco Reyes and not
upon the attorney for the alleged defendants but upon one “A. Pelayo.”
Who is this individual? Did he represent any party to the case the
record of which was to be reconstituted? Is he a real or fictitious
person? All these questions remain unanswered. This lack of notice upon
the adverse party or his attorney and non-compliance with the express
provisions of Act No. 3110 vitiate the reconstitution proceedings and
render the order declaring the record reconstituted ineffective. The
last mentioned order being illegal, the judgment purportedly rendered in
the case cannot become final and executory.

In refusing to hold the Philippine Alien Property Administrator in
contempt of court and in denying the motion to direct the said
Administrator to satisfy or pay the money judgment purportedly rendered
in the reconstituted record of civil case No. 64287 out of the property
formerly belonging to Teizo Mori, or the proceeds realized from the
sale thereof, the Court did not exceed its jurisdiction nor did it
commit a grave abuse of discretion, because the said Administrator was
not a judgment debtor in said case (section 34, Rule 39), neither was
he a debtor of the judgment debtor, nor was he in possession of any
property of the judgment debtor (section 35, Rule 39). The Philippine
Alien Property Administrator was not a debtor of Teizo Mori, because
the latter had been divested of any title or interest in the properties
formerly owned by him and registered in his name after the vesting
order No. P-7 had been executed, and because the said properties after
the vesting order No. P-7 had been executed, and after they had been
sold, the proceeds realized from the sale thereof, belonged to the
Government of the United States of America.

Petition for a writ of certiorari and mandamus denied, with costs against the petitioner.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.