CATALINO BALBECINO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On July 22, 1948, Paulino Acosta filed a complaint to quiet title and for
recovery of possession against Justo Balbecino before the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte over a parcel of land (Civil Case No. 758). Acosta
alleged that he bought the land on August 16, 1926 from Estefania Guerrero and
immediately thereafter he constituted Justo Balbecino as his tenant who
delivered to him his share in the harvest until the crop year 1941-1942 when
Balbecino, taking advantage of the confusion that prevailed during the Japanese
occupation, refused to give his share of the crop alleging to be the owner of
the land. On August 10, 1948, Balbecino filed his answer alleging that the land
was owned and possessed by spouses Raymundo Balbecino and Cipriana Sanchez since
they had acquired it from its former owner Estefania Guerrero de Taylan by
virtue of a deed of sale executed on April 1, 1924. After trial, the court
rendered decision on August 6, 1956 declaring Acosta the owner of the land and
ordering Balbecino to turn over its possession to Acost besides indemnifying him
for his share of the crop from 1942 up to 1955.

Balbecino filed a motion for reconsideration, and when the same was denied,
he took the matter on certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which on June 14, 1956
rendered decision dismissing the petition. When the decision became final and
executory, the trial court issued a writ of execution upon the request of Acosta
with the result that the latter was placed in the possession of the land, as
shown by the return of the sheriff dated December 21, 1956.

It was after Balbecino’s several attempts to recover possession of the land
have failed, which culminated in several contempt proceedings filed against him,
that his brothers and sisters commenced this case before the same court against
Paulino Acosta praying that they be declared owners of the land and that the
writ of possession issued in favor of the latter be declared null and void. In
their complaint, plaintiffs prayed, among others, that a preliminary injunction
be issued to restrain Acosta from occupying, cultivating and collecting the
produce of the land pending termination of the case on the merits.

Defendant alleged in his answer that he is the owner and possessor of the
land, his ownership and possession thereof having been settled, recognized and
adjudicated by the same court in its decision in Civil Case No. 758, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals; that plaintiffs are the brothers and sisters
of Justo Balbecino who was the defendant in the former case, and because of his
defeat therein he is now utilizing said plaintiffs as tools to circumvent and
defeat the force and effect of the decision rendered in said case; and he prayed
that, pending decision on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
against the plaintiffs so that they may be prevented from occupying, and
harassing the defendant in connection with the possession of the land.

On July 10, 1958, the trial court issued an order denying the petition of
plaintiffs for preliminary injunction, but granting that of defendant, it having
found after an examination of the pleadings that defendant obtained a favorable
decision in Civil Case No. 758 and was placed in possession of the land by the
sheriff, and so that possession should be respected pending termination of the
case on the merits. It ordered that the injunction be issued upon filing by
defendant of a bond in the amount of P500.00. It is because of the issuance of
this writ that plaintiffs interposed the present petition for certiorari
alleging that the court a quo committed a grave abuse of discretion in
issuing said writ in disregard of the claim of possession of the plaintiffs
which they intimated in their complaint.

It appears that Paulino Acosta filed a complaint against Justo Balbecino to
quiet title and recover the possession of the land in litigation. In his answer
Balbecino claimed that the land belonged to spouses Raymundo Balbecino and
Cipriana Sanchez who acquired it from Estefania Guerrero de Taylan by virtue of
a deed of sale executed on April 1, 1924. In that answer he did not state the
interest he had in the land although later he executed an affidavit stating that
he is absolute owner thereof in connection with the motion for reconsideration
asking for the setting aside of the judgment rendered against him. This judgment
became final and executory, and when the writ of execution was issued, the
sheriff placed Acosta in possession of the land. And although several attempts
were made by Balbecino to recover possession thereof by defying the writ the
same failed because Acosta filed contempt proceedings against him during which
he pleaded to be spared from disciplinary action upon the promise that he will
never encroach again upon the land. And it was after these attempts had failed
that petitioners, who are brothers and sisters of Justo Balbecino, commenced the
present action. Under the foregoing facts, which appear undisputed in the
pleadings, the court a quo found no other alternative than to grant the petition
for preliminary injunction filed by respondent Acosta, for it really appears
that at the time of the filing of the second action he was in actual possession
of the land, and it is but fair that for the time being that possession be
respected until the case is decided on the merits.

It is true that petitioners have filed with the sheriff an opposition
protesting against the order placing Paulino Acosta in possession of the land,
but the same came late, and so it was properly disregarded by the sheriff. This
protest is a clear proof that Acosta was really in possession of the land when
this case was started by petitioners. Considering that Justo Balbecino averred
in the affidavit he attached to his motion for reconsideration that he is the
absolute owner of the land and that after all his hope to regain it has vanished
petitioners, who are his brothers and sisters, commenced the present action,
there is reason to believe that the same is but an eleventh hour attempt to
circumvent the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 758. This is enough reason
that justifies the action taken by the court a quo.

Wherefore, petition is denied. The order of the court a quo dated July
10, 1958 is affirmed. Costs against petitioners.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.