ALIPIO N. CASILAN AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LEYTE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FILOMENO B. YBANEZ, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TACLOBAN CITY, AND ANTONIO MONTILLA, …

Petition for certiorari to set aside the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the respondent Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Leyte, IVth Branch, in its Civil Cases Nos. 2985 and
2990, as well as the judgment making the injunction permanent.

The fact on record are that the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City, in its Civil Case No. Q-1941, rendered a decision in favor of
herein petitioner Alipio N. Casilan, and against private party
respondent Hipolita Chapman, sentencing the latter to pay petitioner
the sum of P15,000.00. The judgment having become final, the
corresponding writ of execution was issued on 14 March 1961; and
pursuant thereto, the Provincial Sheriff of Leyte, on 25 March 1961,
levied upon certain proferties allegedly owned by respondent Chapman,
consisting of two parcels of land (Lots Nos. 5439 and 5040 of the
Cadastral Survey of Tacloban, Leyte), a residential house, and some
machinery, and advertised the same for sale. The levy on the realty was
entered in the Daybook of the Register of Deeds on 29, March 1961 and
noted on the back of the original certificate of title in the name of
Louis Chapman, deceased husband of respondent Hipolita Chapman. It
appears that since 31 March 1954, this certificate had been cancelled
and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-81 in the name of
Hipolita, and the levy was not noted on the latter certificate at the
time it was entered in the Daybook, apparently because Casilan was
unaware of the transfer.

Before the sheriff’s sale could be held, respondent Antonio
Montilla, who claimed to be a prior judgment and execution creditor of
Hipolita Chapman, and respondent Paz B. Tiongson, allegedly a mortgagee
of the lands levied upon, filed separate actions in the Court of First
Instance of Leyte, claiming to be preferred and duly recorded
creditors, and obtained writs of preliminary injunction against Casilan
and the Sheriff restraining them from proceeding with the sale. After
due trial, judgment was rendered by the same court on 21 March 1962
declaring Casilan’s levy subordinated to the claims of the other two
creditors, Montilla and Tiongson, and making the previous injunction
writs permanent. Notified of this judgment on 21 April 1962, Casilan
moved for reconsideration sixteen (16) days later, on 7 May 1962; but
on 5 June 1962, his counsel received notice that reconsideration was
denied. Thirty-five (35) days afterwards, on 10 July 1962, Casilan
applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari, on the ground that the
injunctions issued by the Court of First Instance of Leyte constituted
unlawful interference with the judgments and orders of a coordinate
court (that of Quezon City).

The petition is without merit.

As things stand now, this Court can no longer interfere with the
preliminary injunctions issued by the Leyte court in its cases Nos.
2985 and 2990, because such preliminary writs have already been
vacated, being superseded and replaced by the permanent injunction
ordered in the decision on the merits rendered on 21 March 1962. And as
to the permanent injunction, no action can be taken thereon without
reviewing the judgment on the merits, such injunction being but a
consequence of the pronouncement that the credits of Tiongson and
Montilla are entitled to priority over that of Casilan. Since the court
below had the power andvright to determine such question of preference,
its judgment is not without, nor in excess of, jurisdiction; and even
assuming that its findings are not correct, they would, at most,
constitute errors of law, and not abuses of discretion, correctible by certiorari.
The obvious remedy for petitioner Casilan was a timely appeal from the
judgment on the merits to the Court of Appeals, the amount involved
being less than P200,000. But the judgment has become final and
unappealable and can not be set aside through certiorari proceedings.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.