MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, PETITIONERS VS. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH VIII, AN…

On 8 October 1949 the Manila Electric Company, hereafter referred to as the
petitioner, brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon
City (civil No. Q-62, Annex A to Annex E of the petition) against the spouses
Filemon Custodio and Dominga Marquez to recover possession (accion
publiciana) of part of a parcel of land (Lot No. 25-A-3-A of the
subdivision plan Psd-7331, being a part of Lot No. 25-A-3 delimited on plan
Psd-7097, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 7680, and described in transfer certificate of title
No. 35913 issued by the Register of Deeds in and for the province of Rizal) and
to compel them to remove the houses erected therein. After joinder of issues and
after due hearing, on 27 October 1950 the Court rendered judgement ordering the
defendants to vacate that part of the petitioner’s parcel of land occupied by
them and to remove that part of their house occupying the latter’s property, and
to pay the commissioner’s fee of P65.47 and the costs of the suit (Annex C to
Annex E of the petition for certiorari). On 5 January 1951 the Court, upon the
petitioner’s motion, entered an order modifying the dispositive part of the
judgment “in the sense that the portions of the houses of defendants abutting
and occupying the plaintiff’s (petitioner’s) land that should be removed are
those portions indicated in the report of the City Engineer forming part of the
record of this case.” (Annex D to Annex E of the petition for certiorari). The
defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals but on 22 September 1952 their
appeal was dismissed for failure to file their brief and abandonment of their
appeal (Annex E to Annex E of the petition for certiorari). On 13 December 1952;
upon motion of the petitioner, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City
(Branch III) entered an order directing execution of the judgment and on 8
January 1953 issued the corresponding writ (Annex A; Annex F to Annex E of the
petition for certiorari). On 17 November 1956, upon motion of the petitioner,
the Court entered an order of demolition of parts of the defendants’ house
occupying the petitioner’s property, under the provisions of section 13, Rule
39, but the sheriff failed to carry out the order of demolition because “the
defendants are no longer residing therein and that they are no longer the owners
of the house subject of demolition. The present owner of the house is one, Dr.
Mena C. Espinosa, who bought the house from the defendants on October 31, 1950.”
(Sheriff’s return dated 21 June 1957.) On 3 August 1957 the Court entered an
order summoning the respondent “to appear before this Court on August 14, 1957,
at 8:30 in the morning, to show cause why said motion for demolition should not
be granted. (Annex G to Annex E of the petition for certiorari; Annex B). The
respondent appeared in court on the day she was required to and proposed that
she be allowed to settle the matter amicably with the petitioner. On 27 August
1957 the Court entered an order directing the respondent to report on the
outcome of her proposed settlement with the petitioner on 11 September 1957. On
7 September 1957 the respondent filed an “urgent motion” praying, the Court to
“hold in abeyance the consideration of plaintiff’s (petitioner’s) motion for
demolition pending the.final outcome of the negotiations currently being
conducted by the above-named parties,” and that she be excused from appearing in
court on 11 September 1957 (Annex C). Upon failure of the parties to come to an
amicable settlement, on 4 December 1957 the Court entered an order, the
dispositive part of which is, as follows:

In view of the foregoing, as prayed for, Dr. Mena Espinosa, who is a privy of
defendant Filemon Custodio, is hereby ordered to remove her house from the lot
in question within sixty (60) days from today, and if after the expiration of
said period the building has not been removed from said place, the Sheriff is
hereby ordered to remove said house from the premises in question and/or
demolish the same if necessary. (Annex D.)

On 31 January 1958 the respondent” filed a complaint against the petitioner
and the Sheriff of Quezon City in the Court of First Instance of Manila for
collection of damages and for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
enforcement of the order dated 4 December 1957 of the Court of First Instance of
Quezon City (civil case No. 35105), on the ground that it is null and void,
having been issued without jurisdiction of her person (Annex X). On 1 February
1958 the respondent court entered an order setting the. hearing for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction on 3 February 1958 at 10:00 o’clock in the
morning (Annex 1). After hearing the oral arguments of the parties on that day,
upon suggestion of the respondent CQurt and with the agreement of the parties,
the respondent court suspended enforcement of the order of demolition for a
period of ten days from that date (Annex 2). On 4 February 1958 the petitioner
filed a “motion to dismiss and opposition to issuance of preliminary
injunction,” on the ground of improper venue, because the respondent’s action
being a real action, should be filed in the province or city where the property
lies; lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, because a court cannot
interfere with the orders of a coordinate and co-equal one by issuing a writ of
injunction to prevent the execution of the order of said court; bar by prior
judgment, because the respondent, being a privy to the defendants spouses in
civil case No. Q-62, is bound by the judgment rendered therein; and the
complaint states no cause of action (Annex E). On 5 February 1958 the respondent
court entered an order granting the respondent up to 7 February 1958 within
which to submit a memorandum in support of her petition for a writ of
preliminary injunction (Annex 3). On 7 February 1958 the respondent filed her
memorandum (Annex 4). On 11 February 1958 the respondent court entered an order
denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and granting the respondent’s prayer
for a writ of preliminary injunction (Annex J to Annex E of the petition for
certiorari; Annex F). On 14 February 1958 the petitioner filed a motion. for
reconsideration (Annex G). The respondent court denied its motion. Hence this
petition for certiorari to annul the order of the respondent court dated 11
February 1958. “

While this Court would not entertain petitions, for a writ of certiorari
questioning the legality and validity of an interlocutory order, yet when a
grave abuse of discretion is very patently committed, it devolves upon this
Court to exercise its supervisory authority to correct the error committed.

It appears that after the Court of First Instance of Quezon City had rendered
judgment on 27 October 1950 in civil case No. Q-62, ordering the defendants
Filemon Custodio and Dominga Marquez to vacate the petitioner’s property and
remove parts of their house occupying it, on 31 October 1950 the respondent and
Flora L. Gonzales acquired by purchase from the defendants the parcel of land
and houses in question and on 27 March 1953 the respondent acquired her
co-owners share and interest therein (Annexes A & B to Annex X of the
petition for certiorari). In the deed of sale executed on 31 October 1950 by
Filemon S. Custodio and witnessed by his wife Dominga Marquez, in favor of the
respondent and her co-owner, it is stated that “the parcel of land above
described and subject of this absolute deed of sale is not registered under Act
496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law, and the parties hereto agree to register
this instrument under the provision of Act No. 3344.” (Annex A to Annex X of the
petition for certiorari.) On 2 November 1950 the document of sale was registered
under the provisions of Act No. 3344 in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City (Annex D to Annex 4 of the answer to the petition for certiorari).
The respondent derives her claim to part of the parcel of land from defendants.
On the other hand, the petitioners title to the same parcel of land is evidenced
by transfer certificate of title No. 35913 issued by the Register of Deeds in
and for the province of Rizal under the provisions of Act No. 496. The
defendants souses could not acquire,title thereto by prescription or adverse
possession in derogation to that of the registered owner, the petitioner,^[1] and respondent Mena C. Espinosa could not
acquire a title better than her transferors. Furthermore, since she was a privy
to the defendants, she was bound, by the judgment rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City in civil case No. Q-62 (Annexes C and D to Annex E of
the petition for certiorari). Neither could she complain that she is being
deprived of her property without due process of law because by appearing, upon
being summoned by the court after rendition of final judgment and before the
issuance of the order of demolition (Annex D), proposing that she allowed to
settle the matter amicably with the petitioner and filing an “urgent motion” “to
“hold in abeyance the consideration of the plaintiff’s (petitioner’s) motion for
demolition pending the final outcome of the negotiations currently being
conducted by the above-named parties” (Annex C), the respondent Mena C. Espinosa
voluntarily had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. To allow her to
frustrate the execution of the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance
of Quezon City in civil Case No. Q-62, by filing a case against the petitioner
in the Court of First Instance of Manila for collection of damages and for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, would set at naught a judgment
validly rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby sanctioning the
commission of fraud by a defeated party colluding with another to nullify the
said judgment.

The writ prayed for is granted, insofar as the writ of preliminary injunction
granted and issued by the respondent court is concerned, which is hereby
dissolved, with costs against the respondent Mena C. Espinosa.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

^[1] Section 46, Act No. 496.