FELIPE NACORDA AND LUZ NACORDA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NICASIO YATCO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (QUEZON CITY BRANCH), J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., AND T…

In Civil Case No. Q-4108 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City Branch, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., sued Fernando Castro
to recover possession of a parcel of land with an area of about 100
square meters, included within a larger parcel covered by a transfer
certificate of title in the plaintiff’s name. The complaint alleged
that the defendant entered into such possession unlawfully and without
the plaintiff’s consent, and prayed that Castro be ejected and ordered
to pay damages at the rate of P30.00 a month. On August 1959 the court,
Judge Nicasio Yatco presiding, rendered judgment for the plaintiff but
reduced the amount to be paid to P10.00 a month from May 1953 until
restoration of possession. The said judgment became final, and on 9
October 1959 a writ of execution was issued, followed by an order for
the demolition of the house situated on the land.

On 22 February 1960 the spouses Felipe Nacorda and Luz Nacorda,
alleging that they had just learned of the proceedings abovementioned,
filed a petition in Civil Case No. Q-4108, praying that the writ of
execution and demolition be lifted on the ground that they were the
owners of the land and the house, having acquired said land by virtue
of a series of transfers from the original owner, a certain Agustin de
Torres, and that Fernando Castro, defendant in the case, was merely a
tenant of theirs. The petition was denied by Judge Yatco.

On 12 March 1960, after the denial of their petition, the spouses
Nacorda filed a separate action against J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc.,
Civil Case No. 5053 of the same Court, but in the branch presided by
Judge Hermogenes Caluag, asking that they be declared the owners of the
same properties and that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to
restrain the execution of the judgment in the previous case.

On 10 February 1962 Judge Yatco issued an order in Civil Case No.
Q-4108 giving the defendant there a period of 30 days, to expire 12
March 1962, within which to vacate the land and demolish the house
situated thereon. In view thereof, and admitting that Judge Caluag
could not properly enjoin the actuations of coordinate branch of the
same court in another case, the spouses Nacorda filed before Us the
instant original petition for injunction, with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, to stop the execution and
demolition order issued by Judge Yatco. We gave due course to the
petition but did not issue the preliminary injunction writ prayed for.

Under date of 19 March 1962 Fernando Castro filed a manifestation in
Civil Case Q-4108 to the effect that he had removed and demolished his
house voluntarily, pursuant to the order of 10 February 1962. On 21
March 1962, however, the plaintiff moved in the same case that the
sheriff of Quezon City be directed to break into the house, which he
had found padlocked, in order to carry out the order of demolition.
Castro opposed the motion, but after hearing the Court granted it in an
order dated 27 March 1962, having found that the house in question was
still standing although a small portion “attached” to it had really
been removed. This last order was implemented on 29 March 1962, for
which reason petitioners here filed in the instant case a
“Supplementary Petition for Mandatory Injunction”, maintaining that the
house that was demolished belonged to them and not to Fernando Castro,
and praying that respondent J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., be ordered to
return possession of the land to them and to restore the demolished
house in the same site and in its original form and size as before the
demolition.

It is quite obvious that the petition for injunction, as the
principal remedy sought here, is not proper. Injunction is an ancillary
writ and cannot be resorted to for the purpose of preventing the
enforcement of a judgment that has already become final, except
possibly in a proper action to annul such judgment. The validity of the
judgment in Civil Case No. Q-4108, in so far as the parties therein are
concerned, is not and has never been questioned: what petitioners seek
is to prevent its execution on the ground that they are the owners of
the property involved therein. This question of ownership is not
litigated before Us in the instant petition; and the bare claim of
petitioners on this point is certainly no reason to obstruct the
judgment duly rendered in a case against another party, especially
considering that the question in that case was merely one of
possession. Indeed, petitioners have filed the proper reivindicatory
action, and they should pursue their remedy there to its logical
conclusion.

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is denied and the petition is dismissed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, and Zaldivar, JJ., no part.