ANGEL ESLER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. DOMINGO ELLAMA AND FELOMINO DE LA CRUZ, DEFENDANTS, DOMINGO ELLAMA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal directly prosecuted to this Court from an order of
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo dated December 9, 1960, issued in
its Civil Case No. 4859 entitled “Esler vs. Ellama and De la
Cruz”, directing the plaintiff to return the parcel of land subject of
an action for unlawful detainer appealed to the Court of First Instance
from a Justice of the Peace Court, but reserving to plaintiff the right
to bring the corresponding action of detainer in the Court of Agrarian
Relations.

On June 26, 1957 plaintiff filed an action in the justice of the
peace court of Igbaras, Iloilo, alleging that plaintiff is the owner of
a parcel of land containing an area of more than 8.7 hectares; that in
September, 1950 he delivered one hectare thereof to defendant under a
verbal agreement whereby defendant undertook to deliver a one-third
share of the produce as yearly rental, and that defendant gave the
agreed rentals yearly until 1957, but thereafter refused to abide by
the contract. He prayed that defendant vacate the land, return
possession thereof to plaintiff and pay damages and costs.

The defendant answered the complaint denying the material
allegations, alleging that the land belonged to the State, and praying
that plaintiff pay him damages for molesting him with the case. The
justice of the peace court after trial ordered defendant to vacate the
premises and pay plaintiff P5.00 a month from January, 1951 to
September, 1957 and to pay the costs.

The defendant having appealed from the judgment of the Justice of
the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance, in the latter court
plaintiff moved for execution pending appeal. The judge granted the
motion and issued an execution. This order is dated March 22, 1958. But
on August 20, 1980, the court itself revoked the order of execution and
ordered the dismissal of the action on the ground that under the
provisions of Republic Act No. 1199, known as the Agricultural Tenancy
Act, the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction of the suit. The
defendant sought to reconsider the order, praying that instead, the
judgment of the justice of the peace court be revoked, as well as the
order for its execution, and that plaintiff be ordered to return the
land with P520 as damages. After various motions and countermotions,
the court issued the order of December 9, 1960. A motion to reconsider
the order was denied, hence this appeal by plaintiff-appellant.

The gist of the appeal is that since the order for the dismissal of
the case was issued on August 20, 1960, and said dismissal had become
final, the court could no longer issue its order of December 9, 1960
directing the return of the property. The argument while apparently
correct would be productive of clear injustice. As a matter of
principle courts should be authorized, as in this case, at any time to
order the return of property erroneously ordered to be delivered to one
party, if the order was found to have been issued without jurisdiction.
Authority for the return of the property is expressed under the
provision of Section 5 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, which reads as
follows:

“Sec. 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment.
Where the judgment executed is reversed totally or partially on appeal,
the trial court, on motion, after the case is remanded to it, may issue
such orders of restitution as equity and justice may warrant under the
circumstances.”

Wherefore, the appeal should be, as it is hereby, dismissed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

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