MARINA TAYZON AND FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES, PETITIONERS, VS. RAMON YCASIANO, JUDGE OF MUNICIPAL COURT OF CITY OF MANILA, BRANCH I, THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, AND MING NG, R…

Petitioner Marina Tayzon is the owner of a lot with a house
leased to Amado Villacorta who in turn sub-leased the ground floor of said house
to Onnie Angeles, the owner of Rose Studio established by her on said ground
floor. In January, 1947, Amado Villacorta assigned his right of lease on the
house to respondent Ming Ng, who from that moment took possession of the
up-stairs only. Respondent Ming Ng introduced himself as owner of the studio on
the ground floor to petitioner Tayzon who at the time knew not the real
owner.

In November, 1947, Onnie Angeles, introducing herself to be the
owner of said studio to petitioner Tayzon, borrowed money from her in the sum of
P500 with said studio as guaranty. Petitioner Tayzon, upon knowing Onnie Angeles
to be the real owner of the studio, advised her to pay the monthly rent of P80
direct to her, a rent that hereinbefore was being paid to respondnet Ming Ng,
who in turn was paying petitioner Tayzon only P85, allegedly for the whole
house, a situation considered by petitioner Tayzon to be unfair to Onnie Angeles
and to herself. Petitioner Tayzon, likewise, advised respondent Ming Ng that
their verbal agreement of lease is terminated to exclude the ground floor,
although the payment of P85 is to continue for the up-stairs alone.

On March 5, 1948, respondent Ming Ng, filed a complaint for
ejectment (Case No. 4635) before the Municipal Court of Manila, presided over by
respondent judge, against Chua Kim Puat, the manager of Rose Studio referred to
above, to which an answer was filed by defendant in said case. Respondent judge
rendered a decision after the trial by virtue of which a writ of execution was
issued and respondent sheriff of Manila removed from the ground floor all the
equipment of the studio against the protest of its new owner (now petitioner
Tayzon, who on March 28, 1948, bought the Rose Studio from its former owner
Onnie Angeles in order that the latter may be able to pay her loan of P500 from
the former and employed petitioner Flordeliza Angeles, the sister of Onnie
Angeles, as manager for her being already experienced in the job).

Petitioner Tayzon returned inside the ground floor all the
equipment of the studio and actually occupies the premises. On May 26, 1948, the
municipal court required the two petitionrs to appear and explain why they
should not vacate the premises, to which petitioners manifested in writing that
they are not parites in the case and that Tayzon’s former tenant Onnie Angeles
of the ground floor had already vacated the premises and returned to said Tayzon
the possession of the same; and that, petitioner Tayzon, being owner of the
premises, has the right to enjoy the same as she pleases. Notwithstanding this
manifestation, upon petition of respondent Ming Ng, on June 8, 1948, respondent
judge issued an order for the execution of the decision and commanded the
sheriff of Manila to cause the defendant or any person now occupying the
premises in question to forthwith remove from said premises, and that plaintiff
have restitution of the same.

Petitioners raise the question of jurisdiction of respondent
judge regarding the issuance of the ejectment execution inasmuch as they
(petitioners) are not parties in said case No. 4635 before his (respondent
judge’s) court, not to mention the fact taht the decision rendered in said case
does not order the removal of any person found in the premises.

Upon the facts of this case as above narrated, there cannot be
any question that respondent judge of the Municipal Court of Manila acted beyond
his jurisdiction in ordering the ouster of petitioners on the authority of the
decision he rendered on March 22, 1948, against Chua Kim Puat. In said decsion
only Chua Kim Puat is ordered to vacate the permises and respondent judge could
not amend asid decision after it had become final and executory, by commanding
anyother person occupying the premises in question, such as petitioners, to
vacate and deliver them to Ming Ng. The decision rendered against Chua Kim Puat
would only include his privies and there is nothing on record to show that
Marina Tayzon and Flordeliza G. Angeles are his privies.

The petition must be granted and the writ of preliminary
injunction issued in this case on July 3, 1943, is declared permanent with costs
against Ming Ng.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

PERFECTO, J.:

We certify that the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ozaeta voted
in support of this decision.