DOLORES DE MESA ABAD AND MARIETTA ESCULTERO, REPRESENTED BY CAROLINA ABAD GONZALES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CORONA IBAY SOMERA, RTC, PRESIDING JUDGE, HONORIA EMPAYNADO AND ATTY. A…

The instant petition is one for Contempt against –

(a)  Hon. Corona Ibay Somera, Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVI, Manila, in connection with her Decision
in Civil Case No. R-82-5879, entitled “Intestate Estate of Ricardo do Mesa
Abad, reprsented by its Administratrix Honoria Empaynado v. Marietta Escultero“;

(b)  Honoria
Empaynado, plaintiff in said Civil Case No.
R-82-5879; and

(c) 
Atty. Amador Sagalongos, counsel for Honoria Empaynado in said civil
case.

For a clearer understanding of the basic issue involved,
hereunder is a brief statement of the pertinent background of the controversy.

The decedent Ricardo Abad y de Mesa
died a bachelor on October 1, 1971
in Manila, without leaving any
will.  He died single in the sense that
he had never married any woman during his lifetime,
but he had a common-law
wife, Honoria Empaynado
with whom he lived under the same roof at 2432 Opalo,
San Andres, Manila for twenty seven (27) years since 1943 up to the time of his
death and with whom he begot two (2) acknowledged natural children, Cecilia E. Abad and Marian E. Abad.  The deceased had also another acknowledged
natural child, Rosemarie Abad y Seracho, begotten with another
woman, Dolores Seracho.

The deceased was survived by his said three (3) acknowledged
natural children, Cecilia, Marian and Rosemarie, all surnamed Abad and his said common-law wife, Honoria Empaynado.

The said deceased was also survived by collateral relatives,
namely, petitioner Dolores de Mesa Abad, a full-blood
sister; Cesar de Mesa Tioseco, a half-blood brother (motherside) and Carolina de Mesa Abad,
an alleged half-sister.

On April 18, 1972,
Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar Tioseco thru counsel
Atty. Escolastico R. Viola, filed a Petition
for Settlement and Administration (Special Proceedings
No. 86792) before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIX.

The petition listed in par. 3 thereof the properties belonging to
the deceased Ricardo de Mesa Abad, among which are the following:

Said parcels of land were acquired by the deceased Ricardo de
Mesa from third persons as evidenced by three (3) ancient deeds of sale, as
follows –

“(a)    On June 2, 1938, Telesforo Reyes, married to Mercedes Monzon,
executed a ‘VENTA A FAVOR DE RICARDO ABAD’ of two (2) parcels of land in
consideration of P1,000.00, acknowledged before a Manila Notary Public and
registered in his notarial book as Doc. No. 113, Page
No. 15, Book No. V, Series of 1938, which sale was the basis of TCT No. 53671
issued 50 years ago;

“(b)    On October 14, 1942,
the Ayala y Compania executed a ‘DEED OF ABSOLUTE
SALE’ of three (3) parcels of land in consideration of P3,982.80 in favor of
Ricardo Abad, acknowledged before Salvador J. Lopayos, Notary Public in Manila, per Doc. No. 160, Page
No. 38, Book No. II, Series of 1942, which sale was the basis of TCT No. 64021
issued 46 years ago;

“(c)    On May 14, 1948, the Ayala Securities
Corporation executed a deed of absolute sale of a parcel of land in
consideration of P1,516.00 in favor of Ricardo Abad, acknowledged before Sofronio
S. Pasolo, Manila,
Notary Public, per Doc. No. 67, Page No. 15, Book No. III, Series of 1948,
which sale was the basis of TCT No. 13530, issued forty (40) years ago.”
(p. 113, Rollo)

When the original petition was filed, petitioners therein were not yet in possession of the
three (3) certificates of titles which deceased Ricardo Abad
kept in Safe Deposit Box No. 251 rented by him under the name of “Ricardo Abad and/or Dolores Abad, with
Cecilia E. Abad as beneficiary in the Monte de Piedad and Savings
Bank, Manila.

However, on April 20,
1972, Dolores Abad, accompanied by Cesar Tioseco, Carolina Abad and Atty. Viola
prevailed upon the Monte de Piedad to inventory the
contents of said safe deposit box.  Said three (3) certificates of title were among the
contents inventoried, thereby enabling them to get the technical description of
the three (3) parcels of land.

On May 2, 1972, Dolores de Mesa Abad,
Cesar de Mesa Tioseco and Carolina de Mesa Abad executed a document
purporting to be an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their deceased
mother, Lucila de Mesa, in which they adjudicated
unto themselves said real properties belonging to their deceased brother
Ricardo de Mesa Abad, as follows:

TCT No. 53671 was adjudicated in favor of Dolores de Mesa Abad;

TCT No. 13530 in favor of Cesar de Mesa Tioseco;
and

TCT No. 64021, together with the residential house in favor of
Carolina de Mesa Abad.

Conformably to
said scheme, petitioners amended their original petition on May 9, 1972 by inserting in par. 3
thereof another paragraph which reads –

“        x          x        
x

“3.    That deceased left the following real and
personal properties, to wit:

“That foregoing parcels of land,
while evidenced
by the corresponding certificates of title
in the name of the deceased, but
actually are properties of our late mother,
Lucila de Mesa and are
only being administered by our late brother.  (pp. 114-115, Rollo)

The petition was set for hearing on June 9, 1972 at 8:30 a.m.  The names of the three acknowledged natural
children of the deceased as well as his common-law wife were not mentioned in
the petition.

On June 14, 1972,
based on the ex-parte evidence of petitioners, the Intestate
Court issued an Order appointing Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as administrator. 
Tioseco took his oath on June 15, 1972 and on June 16, 1972, the letters of administration were issued to him.

Honoria Empaynado
and her children discovered the pendency of said
proceeding only on July 5, 1972
when the Peoples’ Bank & Trust Company informed them of a court order it
received collating with the estate of Ricardo Abad
trust funds and savings deposits payable to Ricardo Abad
and/or Cecilia Abad or Marian Abad.

Thus, on July 24, 1972,
Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia Abad, Marian Abad, and Rosemarie Abad, claiming to be the rightful heirs, filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, praying, among others, for the revocation of Cesar de Mesa’s
appointment.

The trial court denied reconsideration but allowed private
respondents to appear and establish their rights as heirs of Ricardo Abad.

On November 2, 1973,
after receiving evidence, the trial court issued an Order declaring Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia,
Marian and Rosemarie all surnamed Abad as heirs to
the exclusion of petitioners and entitled to succeed to the entire estate at
the same time appointing Honoria Empaynado
as the administratrix.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.  Their appeal was likewise denied for having
been filed out of time.

Meanwhile, on October 4,
1973, Honoria Empaynado
and the three (3) children filed a motion to annul the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and the titles issued pursuant thereto.

The lower court granted the motion.  Petitioners appealed but the lower court
dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was filed out of time and
considering further that petitioners failed to incorporate therein pleadings,
motions and interlocutory orders as are related and necessary for the proper
understanding of the issues involved.

Due to the dismissal of their two (2) appeals, petitioners
elevated their cause to the then Court of
Appeals on Certiorari and Mandamus in Ca-GR No. SD-04352,
wherein they prayed for the approval of their appeals.

The Court of Appeals found Certiorari and Mandamus without
merit on the ground that both records
on appeal were filed out of time.

Petitioners then came to this Court on a petition for certiorari
in GR No. L-42225.

On July 9, 1985,
this Court issued a Resolution^[1]
with the following dispositive portion ?

“Accordingly, the judgment under review is hereby set aside
and the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which has succeeded the former Court of
First Instance, Branch XXIX, is hereby directed to give due course to
petitioners’ appeals from (1) the Order of November 2, 1973 declaring private
respondents heirs of the deceased Ricardo Abad; and
(2) the Order, dated November 19, 1974, annulling certain documents
appertaining to the intestate estate of said deceased.  No costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 16, Rollo)

On November 26, 1980,
a complaint for Recovery of Possession and damages was filed by the Intestate
Estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad represented by Honoria Empaynado, administratrix against a certain Marietta Escultero.  The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. R-82-5879 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch XXVI presided over by respondent Judge Corona Ibay
Somera.

The complaint substantially states that plaintiff estate is the
owner of the parcel of land, specifically
Lot No. 6 covered by TCT No. 53671 of
the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila situated at 2313 Jacobo, Singalong, Manila; that
sometime in January 1977, through strategy and stealth and without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff,
defendant entered into said land and
then and there squatted thereon by
constructing a structure of light materials which she used as repair
shop, thereby, depriving plaintiff of possession
of said land; that plaintiff had made repeated demands upon defendant to vacate the premises and remove the structures built thereon, but defendant has failed and refused to do so.

On September 4, 1986,
respondent Judge Somera promulgated her decision in said Civil Case No. R-82-5879, the pertinent portion of which reads –

“Evidences of both parties show that up to the filing of the
instant case, the hereditary rights of the plaintiffs are still under
consideration.  Although there were
Orders of Judge Mariano V. Agcaoili of Branch XXIV of
the CFI of Manila declaring Cecilia E. Abad, Marian
E. Abad and Rosemarie S. Abad
the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased Ricardo Abad
and annulling the extrajudicial partition executed by the sisters and brother
of deceased Ricardo Abad, said orders are the subject
of a petition for certiorari of the Supreme Court.  Resolution of the Supreme Court was
promulgated on July 9, 1982 (1985) setting aside the judgment declaring the
appeals filed out of time and giving due course to the appeals of Dolores Abad Gonzales, and Cesar Tioseco
from the two orders.  As of this writing
the lawful heirs of the late Ricardo de Mesa Abad are
not yet established.

“In view thereof, this Court cannot pass upon who should be
respected to regain the lawful possession of the lot allegedly occupied by
defendant Marietta Escultero.

“The Court’s decision is therefore confined to who was the
possessor of the property at the time defendant occupied the land.

x          x          x          x

“After an examination of the evidences adduced by both
parties, the Court is convinced that possession de facto was exercised by the
late Ricardo de Mesa Abad over the land at No.
2313 Jacobo St., Singalong, Manila,
in the concept of a legal owner.  This
being so, after his death, the exercise or possession de facto was continued by
his estate through his common-law wife Empaynado and
his children.  Dolores de Mesa Abad failed to prove her possession of the land except her
act of allowing the defendant Marietta Escultero to
occupy the same.

x        x          x          x

“In view of the foregoing, the possession de facto continued to belong to the estate of
Ricardo de Mesa Abad until after judgment has been
rendered by the probate court in the Special Proceedings No. 86792, Dolores de Mesa Abad
and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco, Petitioners, Honoria Empaynado, et al., Oppositors.  As
of said date, the Supreme Court
gave due course to the appeal of the petitioners from the orders of the lower court, Branch XXIV, RTC, Manila, dated November 2, 1973 and November 19, 1974.

x        x          x          x”

(pp. 127-128, Rollo)

with the
following dispositive portion:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Judgement
is hereby rendered, Ordering Defendant
Marietta Escultero and all persons claiming under
her:

“1)     To
vacate the premises at 2313 Jacobo
Street, Singalong, Manila;

“2)     To
deliver the possession of the name land
to the plaintiff;

“3)     To pay plaintiff a
monthly rental of P400.00 from January, 1977 until she has vacated the
premises;

“4)     To pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and

“5)     To
pay the costs of litigation.

“There is no
award for damages.”

“SO
ORDERED.” (pp. 52-53, Rollo)

From the aforesaid decision, defendant Escultero
filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied, hence, she appealed the decision to
the Court of Appeals under CA-GR No. CV-17542.

Pending said appeal, on March 10, 1988, petitioners Dolores de
Mesa Abad and Marietta Escultero
represented by Carolina Abad Gonzales filed the
instant petition for Contempt.

The petitioners alleged –

“17.   That the judgment aforequoted in the Decision dated September 4, 1986,
rendered by the Public Respondent Judge duly attested and coordinated by
Private Respondents, Atty. Amador E. Sagalongos,
counsel for the respondent, Honoria Empaynado, constitutes contumacious acts, contemptuous,
willful disregard or disobedience of the judgment of the Resolution promulgated
by the Honorable Supreme Court on July 9, 1985, and pursuant to the provisions
of Sub-paragraph B, Section 3, Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court in conjunction
with the rulings of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Rivera, L-3646,
May 26, 1952, citing Saal v. South Brooklyn Ry. Co., 106 N>Y.S. 996, 1000, 122 App. Div. 364; 9
Words and Phrases 57; Narcida v. Bowen, 22 Phil.
3365.

“18.   That the Private
Respondents are equally liable with the Public Respondent Judge to the Contempt
charged without prejudice to disciplinary action
being an officer of the Courts to preserve the purity of the legal professions;
Atty. Amador E. Sagalongos as an officer of the Court
may be visited with disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary
sanctions by the Honorable Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives
inherent in it as the duly
constituted guardian of the
legal fraternity.

“19.   Evidently, it becomes
imperative for the preservation of the status quo
rights of the Petitioners and the interest and protection of substantial rights thereby affected occasioned by
the contumacious acts and utter disregard of the Judgment in the Resolution
promulgated on July 9, 1985 by the Honorable Supreme Court; it then follows
that the Public Respondent Judge’s decision suffers from legal infirmities in
rendering her Decision dated September 4, 1986, thus, considering her acts
ultra vires thereby rendering the said Decision and
its Judgment null and void.” (pp. 108-109, Rollo)

In her Comment dated May
16, 1988, (pp. 36-37, Rollo) respondent
Judge Somera professes awareness of the Resolution of
this Court in GR No. L-42225.  In fact, she even mentioned this in her
decision.

There is no question
that disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or
command of a court or injunction granted by a court or judge, more particularly
in this case, the Supreme Court,
constitutes Indirect Contempt punishable under Rules 71 of the Rules of Court.

It has been held that contempt of court is a defiance of the
authority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law
into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties
litigant or their witnesses
during litigation.  It is defined as a
disobedience to the court by setting up an opposition to its authority, justice
and dignity.  It signifies not only a willful
disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders but such conduct as tends to
bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute
or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.  (Halili v.
Court of Industrial Relations, 136 SCRA 135, April 30, 1985)

However, it is well-settled that “the power to punish for
contempt of court should be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle.  Only occasionally
should the court invoke its inherent power
in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice
must falter or fail.” (Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778; Gamboa v. Teodoro et al, 91 Phil. 274; Sulit
v. Tiangco, 115 SCRA 207; Lipata
v. Tutaan, 124 SCRA 880) “Only in cases of clear
and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised.  A bona fide
misunderstanding of the terms of the order or of the procedural rules should
not immediately cause the institution of contempt proceedings.” “Such
power ‘being drastic and extra-ordinary in its nature x x x should not be resorted to x x x unless necessary in the interest of justice.’”
(Gamboa v. Teodoro et al,
supra)

Likewise, well-settled, is the rule that an act to be considered
contemptuous must be clearly contrary or prohibited by the order of the
Court.  “A person cannot, for
disobedience, be punished for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or
required to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no
reasonable doubt or undertainty as to what specific
act or thing is forbidden or required. 
(Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation v. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 494, 525 citing Lee Yick
Hon v. Achson etc., R. Co., 146 Fed 176, 183; 13 CJ
15; Cua v. Lecaros, 161
SCRA 480, 489)

The decision of this Court in GR No.
L-42225 merely gave due course to the petitioners’ appeals from (1) the Order
of November 2, 1983 declaring private respondents heirs of the deceased Ricardo
Abad, and (2) the Order dated November 19, 1974,
annulling certain documents appertaining to the intestate estate of said
deceased.  (p. 16, Rollo)

On the other hand, the decision of respondent
Judge Somera in Civil Case No. R-82-5879
merely restored possession of the subject parcel of land to the plaintiff
estate from defendant Marietta Escultura who is not a
party and who has no successional interest in the
estate of the deceased Ricardo Abad.  Definitely this decision on possession did
not defy the resolution of this Court in GR No. L-42225 in a
manner that would make respondent Judge Somera and
the other respondents liable for contempt.

WHEREFORE, for
lack of merit this petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, and concurred in by
Justices Claudio Teehankee, Efren
Plana, Lorenzo Relova, B.
S. de la Fuente and Nestor Alampay.