G.R. No. 30953. March 07, 1929
NARCISA JAVIER, SIXTO JAVIER AND MAURICIA JAVIER, PETITIONERS, VS. ISIDRO PAREDES, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, AND TOMASA GREGORIO, FOR HERSELF AND AS THE JU…
OSTRAND, J.:
Gregoria Javier, as the heirs of their deceased father, Vicente Javier,
brought civil case No. 1530 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna
against Claro Pempengco, now deceased, and whose estate is represented
by his widow, the respondent Tomasa Gregorio, as the judicial
administratrix, to recover the ownership of a one-third interest in two
parcels of land situated in the barrio of Bubukal, Santa Cruz, Province
of Laguna, and to effect a partition of said parcels of land between
them and the said Claro Pempengco. The other petitioner herein,
Mauricia Javier, intervened in the case aind filed a supplemental
complaint therein, claiming the other two-thirds of the land. The case
was decidefd adversely to the plaintiffs by the Court of First
Instance, but upon appeal to this court, a decision was rendered on
November 24, 1919,[1]
reversing the judgment of the lower
court and holding that an alleged sale with the right to repurchase,
relied upon by Pempengco as the source of the title claimed by him, was
merely an equitable mortgage given as security for a loan and that the
plaintiffs in the case might redeem the parcels by paying Pempengco the
sum of P456, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from May
24, 1915. After the decision became final, the plaintiffs deposited
with the Court of First Instance the sum required for the redemption of
the land and on January 22, 1920, moved that court to issue a writ of
execution for the possession of said lands and for the amount due them
for the products thereof in accordance with the decision of the Supreme
Court.
In the meantime and while the appeal to the Supreme Court in case
No. 1530 was pending, Pempengco and his wife, Tomasa Gregorio, obtained
Torrens title to the land without advising the plaintiffs and without
mentioning them in the application for registration, and before any
action was taken on the aforesaid motion for execution, they instituted
civil case No. 3065 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna against
the Javiers and the sheriff of Laguna to restrain them from executing
the final judgment of the Supreme Court in case No. 1530, basing the
action on the ground that, holding a Torrens title for the land, they,
the defendants in execution, were the absolute owners of the land and,
as such, could not be deprived of their title and possession.
On April 29, 1920, the Court of First Instance, over which the
herein respondent judge was presiding, issued an order in the nature of
a decision in said case No. 3065, in which order it was declared that
Claro Pempengco had been guilty of fraud in procuring a Torrens title
for the aforesaid lands and for that reason could not be granted any
equitable relief; that the decision of the Supreme Court in case No.
1530 was final and conclusive between the parties; and that the title
to said lands was res adjudicata. The complaint in case No. 3065 was
therefore dismissed with costs against the plaintiff, and on April 30,
1920, the court ordered the issuance of the writ of execution of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case No. 1530, as a result of which
the plaintiffs in that case were duly placed in possession of the lands.
The plaintiffs in said civil case No. 3065 excepted to the order of
April 29, 1920, and moved that a new trial be granted but shortly
afterwards withdrew the motion for a new trial and, giving notice of
appeal, filed a bill of exceptions, but on June 14, 1920, the presiding
judge, the Honorable Isidro Paredes, denied the right of said
plaintiffs to withdraw their motion for a new trial. He also
disapproved the bill of exceptions, and no further action was taken by
the plaintiffs to perfect the appeal.
Some time thereafter, a new counsel Ramon Diokno, appeared in the
case, and upon a new trial, a decision was rendered by the Court of
First Instance on May 14, 1927, relieving the plantiffs in said case
No. 3065 from the effects of the final decision of the Supreme Court in
case No. 1530 on the ground that the adverse judgment in that case was
due to error and excusable negligence on the part of said plaintiffs
and that under the provisions of section 113 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, they were entitled to relief from said judgment; that the
plaintiffs were the owners of the land in question and should be placed
in possession of the same; that they had the right to recover the
amount allowed the defendants in the final decision of the Supreme
Court, with legal interest from May 25, 1920, and should also recover
the value of fruits of the lands from May 25, 1920, in the sum of ^500
per year, and the costs of this action.
The defendants excepted to the decision on June 3, 1927, and
presented the usual motion for a new trial on the 20th of the same
month. On July 11, the court denied that motion and ordered the
execution of the judgment unless the defendants gave bond in the sum of
P7,000 within ten days. Contrary to law, no special reason for such
execution was mentioned by the court. No bond was filed, and in the
execution of the judgment, the land was again turned over to the
plaintiffs in that case.
Upon appeal by the defendants in said case No. 3065, this court, in a decision promulgated on April 30, 1928,[1]
reversed the judgment of May 14, 1927, and ordered that the land in
question be restored to the appellees; that such other property or
funds as might have been seized under the execution ordered by the
court below, be returned to the defendants; that in the event the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case No. 1530 had not been satisfied,
an alias writ of execution might issue for the unsatisfied balance;
that the portions of the land in question be segregated from the rest
of the land registered; that such segregation be made by a licensed
surveyor at the expense of the defendants and subject to the approval
of the Director of Lands; that thereupon the certificate, or
certificates, of title issued in favor of Claro Pempengco and Tomasa
Gregorio be cancelled and that transfer certificates of title be issued
to the defendants, the respective shares of each to be stated in the
certificates as might be agreed upon in writing by said defendants and
duly acknowledged before a notary public; and that transfer
certificates of title for the remaining portions of the registered land
might then be issued in favor of Tomasa Gregorio and the estate of
Pempengco.
Upon the return of the record of said civil case to the Court of
First Instance, the defendants Javier had the portions of the lands
adjudicated to them segregated by a duly licensed surveyor and had the
respective undivided shares of each of the parties defendant in said
case determined by a public instrument and otherwise duly complied with
the decision of the Supreme Court in that case and, on or about July
15, 1928, they filed a motion in the Court of Pempengco and Gregorio vs.
Javier, G. R. No. 28313, not reported. First Instance setting forth the
facts and, in substance, praying that the other provisions of the
dispositive part of the decision of the Supreme Court be executed. On
July 31, 1928, after due notice, an order was issued by the court
below, substantially granting said motion.
Before the order was complied with, Attorney Marcelino Lontok
appeared in the case, and on or about September 3,1928, the herein
respondent, Tomasa Gregorio, for herself and as the judicial
administratrix of the estate of Claro Pempengco, through Attorney
Lontok, instituted another action, civil case No. 5050 of the Court of
First Instance of Laguna, against the herein petitioners, alleging for
the third time that the said Claro Pempengco, during his life time, had
purchased the said two parcels of land, which were the subject niatter
of the aforesaid civil cases Nos. 1530 and 3065, and was the owner and
in possession of said parcels of land; that the defendants Javier had
obtained the judgment in said case No. 1530 in their favor by means of
fraud in that they had knowledge of the existence of an alleged
document of sale of said lands in favor of the plaintiffs but,
nevertheless, had presented false proof to sustain their contention,
and that they were in estoppel and had no personality to bring said
civil case No. 1530, and that by reason thereof, the plaintiff had been
damaged in the sum of P10,000. The plaintiff therefore prayed the court
again for judgment declaring null and void the final judgment of the
Supreme Court in said case No. 1530, as well as its final judgment in
said case No. 3065, in so far as it in those decisions was ordered that
the title issued in favor of said plaintiff and the said Claro
Pempengco be cancelled, and for the recovery of the sum of P10,000 as
damages, with the costs.
Shortly after the filing of the complaint in said civil case No.
5050, Tomasa Gregorio filed a motion praying that she be relieved from
the effects of the order of July 31, 1928, and on September 25, 1928,
the defendants in civil case No. 3065 filed another petition for the
execution of the final judgment of the Supreme Court in so far as the
possession of the lands in question was concerned. On December 12,
1928, the court denied the motion of Tomasa Gregorio and granted the
petition of the Javiers to the extent of ordering that a writ of
execution be issued, but on the 21st of the same month, the respondent
judge, on motion of Tomasa Gregorio, appointed a receiver of the
products of the land in question upon the filing of a bond of P500 by
the plaintiff and P1,000 by the receiver, and denied another motion
filed by the Javiers for the dismissal of case No. 5050 on the ground
that the subject matter of the complaint was res adjudicata
and that the court had no jurisdiction to modify or annul the final
decisions of the Supreme Court in civil cases Nos. 1530 and 3065,
On December 27, 1928, the plaintiff in case No. 5050 filed an
amended complaint, containing substantially the same allegations as
those appearing in the original complaint, and further stated that the
plaintiff and the said Claro Pempengco had cleared the said lands after
the purchase by them and planted them to coconuts and that they spent
at least P3,000 in doing so.
Thereupon Narcisa, Sixto and Mauricia Javier brought the present action for a writ of certiorari and based their petition on the following propositions:
“(a) That the whole subject matter of the
complaint, as well as the amended complaint, in said civil case No.
5050, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna is res adjudicata, as
clearly shown by the records and the final decisions of the Supreme
Court in said civil cases Nos. 1530 and 3065, of the Court of First
Instance of Laguna, between the same parties;“(b)
That the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna has
no jurisdiction to modify, vary or annul the final decisions of the
Supreme Court in said civil cases Nos. 1530 and 3065, of the Court of
First Instance of Laguna, adjudicating the lands in question to the
petitioners herein and to Gregoria Javier, as prayed for in the
complaint in said civil case No. 5050, of the Court of First Instance
of Laguna, or to grant any other relief prayed for therein, and
consequently he had no jurisdiction to proceed with said action, which
should have been dismissed in accordance with the motion of the
defendants therein of October 2, 1928;“(c) That the
respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna has not
regularly pursued his authority and has acted not only in excess of but
without jurisdiction and in manifest and gross abuse of the discretion
imposed in him by the law in appointing a receiver of the products of
the lands of the defendants in said civil case No. 5050, of the Court
of First Instance of Laguna, under the showing made by the plaintiff in
her petition therein, as the said plaintiff has no right, title or
interest in oiPto said lands or the fruits thereof, as conclusively
shown by the final decisions of the Supreme Court in said civil cases
Nos. 1530 and 3065, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, between
the same parties, which were attached to and made a part of the
opposition of the defendants to the appointment of said receiver, and
its said order of December 21, 1928, appointing a receiver of the
fruits of said lands of the defendants is null and void;“(d)
That the said civil case No. 5050, of the Court of First Instance of
Laguna, has been maliciously brought by the plaintiff therein with the
sole, deliberate and fraudulent intention of hindering and preventing,
if possible, the execution of the final judgment of the Supreme Court
in said civil case No. 3065, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna,
between the same parties, and thus to delay, hinder and obstruct the
administration of justice in order to enrich herself, unjustly and
wrongfully, out of the fruits of said lands of the defendants, which
lands are still in her possession, knowing that the defendants are poor
people and unable to protect their rights unless assisted by others;“(e)
That the action of the plaintiff and her attorney in bringing said
civil case No. 5050, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and the
proceedings taken by them therein, and the action of the respondent
judge in said case, as hereinbefore alleged, constitutes a case of
contempt of the Supreme Court, which should not be overlooked in the
due administration of justice in these Islands; that the petitioners
herein have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to correct the
proceedings herein complained of.”
The petitioners therefore pray:
“(a) That a writ of certiorari be issued,
directed to the said respondent, the Honorable Isidro Paredes, as Judge
of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, to certify forthwith to this
Honorable Court the records and proceedings had in said civil case No.
5050, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and especially the
orders complained of in this petition, so that the same may be reviewed
by this Hon- orable Court:“(b) That after final
hearing and review of the matters complained of in this petition, that
the said orders of December 21, 1928, Exhibits M and N, in said civil
case No. 5050, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, be declared to
be not only in excess of but without the jurisdiction of said court,
and, therefore, null and void;“(c) That the
respondent judge herein be ordered and commanded absolutely to desist
and refrain from further proceeding in said civil action No. 5050, of
the Court of First Instance of Laguna, or any matter specified therein,
and that he dismiss said action, with treble costs, and reserving to
the defendants therein the right to recover from the plaintiff such
damages as they have and will suffer by reason of such malicious
prosecution;“(d) That such action be taken by the
court in relation to the contumacious conduct of the respondents herein
and the attorney for the said Tomasa Gregorio in said civil case No.
5050, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, as the facts may
warrant in order to command due respect for the final decisions and
orders of this Honorable Court;“(e) For treble costs against the respondents; and
“(f) For such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and equitable in the premises.”
Both the statement quoted and the prayer are well founded; and it is
indeed difficult to believe that civil case No. 5050 has been brought
in good faith. It is true that in most jurisdictions in the United
States, a judgment procured by fraud may, under certain conditions, be
vacated after the expiration of the term of court during which it was
rendered, but considering the provisions of sections 113 and 513 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, it is exceedingly doubtful whether that rule
can be applied in this jurisdiction if the parties have had their day
in court. But be that as it may, and assuming for the sake of the
argument that said rule is applicable here, it is to be observed that
in no jurisdiction can a judgment be thus vacated for fraud where the
particular fraud was in issue in the original proceedings. The records
show, and the respondents in their answer admit, that the alleged fraud
was put in issue at the trial of civil case No. 3065, and it follows
that, under the rule stated, the same question cannot again be raised.
It may also be noted thafc a suit for the vacation of a judgment is
an equitable proceeding, and it is a well known maxim that “he who
comes into equity must come there with clean hands.” In surreptitiously
obtaining Torrens title to the lands in question, Pempengco was guilty
of fraud, and his estate is, consequently, not entitled to equitable
relief.
The petition is granted, and it is hereby declared that the
respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the
aforesaid civil case No. 5050 and that his orders of December 21, 1928,
hereinbefore mentioned, are null and void’. It is therefore ordered
that said civil case No. 5050 be dismissed, with the costs against the
respondent Tomasa Gregorio; that the receiver, Vicente Zotomayor, be
discharged, and that he deliver all of the products of the land in
question, which may have come into his hands, to the petitioners; that
the receiver’s compensation, if any there be, shall be paid by the
respondent Tomasa Gregorio and shall not be charged against the
petitioners’; and that the judgment of this court in civil case No.
3065 shall be executed immediately and without delay. The said
respondent shall also pay the costs of this action. So ordered.
Johhson, Street, and Johns, JJ., concur.
Malcolm, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur in the result.
[1] Javier vs. Pempengco, G. R. No. 14943, not reported.
[1] Pempengco and Gregorio vs. Javier, G.R. No. 28313, not reported.