1961 / Mar

G.R. No. L-16003 - MARCH 1961 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-16003March 29, 1961 Cesareo Perez vs. Vicente Evite, et al. G.R. No. L-15940March 29, 1961 Vicente Cambare vs. Union Obrera de Tabaco Lines, Inc. G.R. No. L-15776March 29, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Adolfo Saez G.R. No. L-15195March 29, 1961 Anunciacion Narabal de Nilo, et al. vs. Honorio Romero, et al. G.R. No. L-15023March 29, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Alban, et al. G.R. No. L-15000March 29, 1961 Mayon Motors, Inc. vs. Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-14070March 29, 1961 Maria Gervacio Blas, et al. vs. Rosalina Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-13294March 29, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Isidoro Escalona, et al. G.R. No. L-12400March 29, 1961 Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-12377March 29, 1961 Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. vs. Ramon Flores G.R. No. L-12035March 29, 1961 Josefita T. Vda. de Lacson, et al. vs. Santiago Granada, et al. G.R. No. L-16371March 28, 1961 Zambales Colleges, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-17288March 27, 1961 Deogracias G. Trinidad, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-16883March 27, 1961 Demetrio B. Encarnacion vs. Jose L. Baltazar, et al. G.R. No. L-16567March 27, 1961 Delgado Brothers, Inc. vs. Home Insurance Company, et al. G.R. No. L-16131March 27, 1961 Casiano Ignacio, et al. vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-16073March 27, 1961 In re: Gervacio Cabrales Cu Gervacio Cabrales Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16025March 27, 1961 Fookien Times Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-15811March 27, 1961 In re: Juan Manuel, et al. Juan Manuel vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-15691March 27, 1961 In re: Ong Ching Guan Ong Ching Guan vs. Republic G.R. No. L-15267March 27, 1961 Domingo Natividad vs. Pastor L. de Guzman G.R. No. L-14865March 27, 1961 In re: Gelacio Lo Chicombin Gelacio Lo Chicombin vs. Republic G.R. No. L-14597March 27, 1961 Pastor Tolentino vs. Basilio Baltazar, et al. G.R. No. L-14352March 27, 1961 Dorotea Confesor, et al. vs. Pantaleon Pelayo, et al. G.R. No. L-14307March 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Icasiano C. Cuello G.R. No. L-14188March 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Eutiquio Yamson, et al. G.R. No. L-13987March 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Emiliano Micu, et al. G.R. No. L-13986March 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Ceferina Flores de Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-13470March 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Segundo C. Abejero G.R. No. L-9452March 27, 1961 Fernando Mendoza vs. Edilberto Y. David, et al. G.R. No. L-16898March 25, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Philander Longao G.R. No. L-16611March 25, 1961 Roman Cuison vs. Simplicio Goite G.R. No. L-15313March 25, 1961 Pisingan Chiong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-14911March 25, 1961 Ong Peng vs. Jose Custodio G.R. No. L-13694March 25, 1961 Cirila Saul, et al. vs. Presentacion de Catera, et al. G.R. No. L-13693March 25, 1961 Florentina Aleman, et al. vs. Presentacion de Catera, et al. G.R. No. L-13178March 25, 1961 Pampanga Sugar Development Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-12783March 25, 1961 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr., etc., et al. G.R. No. L-16114March 24, 1961 Miguel Mactal vs. Filomeno Melegrito G.R. No. L-15672March 24, 1961 Patricio Villeza vs. Jesus Olmedo G.R. No. L-15630March 24, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio E. Daleon G.R. No. L-13239March 24, 1961 Stewart E. Tait, et al. vs. Placido Mapa, et al. G.R. No. L-12976March 24, 1961 Cesar Gonzales vs. Jose V. Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-12957March 24, 1961 Constancio Sienes, et al. vs. Fidel Esparcia, et al. G.R. No. L-11781March 24, 1961 Teotimo Rivera vs. Timoteo Peña, et al. G.R. No. L-16427March 20, 1961 Amable Valdez vs. Pedro Octaviano, et al. G.R. No. L-13461March 20, 1961 Pedro Tuballa vs. Maria de la Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-15453 and L-15723March 17, 1961 San Carlos Milling Co., Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-14861March 17, 1961 In re: Osmundo Tan Osmundo Tan vs. Republic G.R. No. L-11340March 17, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Leodegario Balongcas, et al. G.R. No. L-10510March 17, 1961 M. McConnel, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-12539March 16, 1961 Francisco Sanchez, et al. vs. Martin N. Francisco G.R. No. L-11664March 16, 1961 Ambrosio Gabio, et al. vs. Rodolfo Ganzon, et al. G.R. No. L-16269March 8, 1961 Cristeta L. Vda. de Sengbengco, et al. vs. Francisco Arellano, et al. G.R. No. L-13579March 8, 1961 Epifanio Alforque, et al. vs. Mindanao Motor Lines, Inc. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Cesareo Perez vs. Vicente Evite, et al. Vicente Cambare vs. Union Obrera de Tabaco Lines, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Adolfo Saez Anunciacion Narabal de Nilo, et al. vs. Honorio Romero, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Alban, et al. Mayon Motors, Inc. vs. Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue Maria Gervacio Blas, et al. vs. Rosalina Santos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Isidoro Escalona, et al. Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic of the Philippines Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. vs. Ramon Flores Josefita T. Vda. de Lacson, et al. vs. Santiago Granada, et al. Zambales Colleges, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Deogracias G. Trinidad, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. Demetrio B. Encarnacion vs. Jose L. Baltazar, et al. Delgado Brothers, Inc. vs. Home Insurance Company, et al. Casiano Ignacio, et al. vs. Commission on Elections In re: Gervacio Cabrales Cu Gervacio Cabrales Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines Fookien Times Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. In re: Juan Manuel, et al. Juan Manuel vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Ong Ching Guan Ong Ching Guan vs. Republic Domingo Natividad vs. Pastor L. de Guzman In re: Gelacio Lo Chicombin Gelacio Lo Chicombin vs. Republic Pastor Tolentino vs. Basilio Baltazar, et al. Dorotea Confesor, et al. vs. Pantaleon Pelayo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Icasiano C. Cuello People of the Philippines vs. Eutiquio Yamson, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Emiliano Micu, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ceferina Flores de Garcia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Segundo C. Abejero Fernando Mendoza vs. Edilberto Y. David, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Philander Longao Roman Cuison vs. Simplicio Goite Pisingan Chiong vs. Republic Ong Peng vs. Jose Custodio Cirila Saul, et al. vs. Presentacion de Catera, et al. Florentina Aleman, et al. vs. Presentacion de Catera, et al. Pampanga Sugar Development Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr., etc., et al. Miguel Mactal vs. Filomeno Melegrito Patricio Villeza vs. Jesus Olmedo People of the Philippines vs. Antonio E. Daleon Stewart E. Tait, et al. vs. Placido Mapa, et al. Cesar Gonzales vs. Jose V. Rodriguez, et al. Constancio Sienes, et al. vs. Fidel Esparcia, et al. Teotimo Rivera vs. Timoteo Peña, et al. Amable Valdez vs. Pedro Octaviano, et al. Pedro Tuballa vs. Maria de la Cruz, et al. San Carlos Milling Co., Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. In re: Osmundo Tan Osmundo Tan vs. Republic People of the Philippines vs. Leodegario Balongcas, et al. M. McConnel, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Francisco Sanchez, et al. vs. Martin N. Francisco Ambrosio Gabio, et al. vs. Rodolfo Ganzon, et al. Cristeta L. Vda. de Sengbengco, et al. vs. Francisco Arellano, et al. Epifanio Alforque, et al. vs. Mindanao Motor Lines, Inc. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16003 March 29, 1961

CESAREO PEREZ and MAMERTA ALCANTARA,plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
VICENTE EVITE and SUSANA MANIGBAS,defendants-appellees.

Cesareo Perez and Mamerto Alcantara for plaintiffs-appellants.
Conrado Agoncillo for defendants- appellees.

BARRERA,J.:

In an action to quiet title brought by the spouses Cesareo Perez and Mamerta Alcantara against Vicente Evite and Susana Manigbas (Civil Case No. 643),involving a parcel of land 11 meters wide and 37 meters long, or with a total area of 407 square meters, the Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered judgment dated November 9, 1955, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) Dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs; and

(2) Declaring the defendants the owners of the land in question: that is, the area measured 8.92 meters westward from he cacawate tree standing on the northwestern corner of the land (whichcacawate treeis 35.11 meters from the edge of the land bordering' the provincial road) by 11 meters southward to the point on the southwestern corner which is also 35.11 meters from the edge of the land bordering the provincial road on the east.

Without pronouncement as to costs.

On appeal by therein plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals, on March 31, 1958, affirmed the decisionin toto.

The decision having become final, the court of origin, upon application by the defendants, ordered its execution. The writ of execution, actually issued on February 25, 1959, commanded the Provincial Sheriff of Batangas "to deliver the ownership of the portion of the land in litigation to the defendant Vicente Evite, of Rosario, Batangas, pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the above-quoted decision."

Plaintiffs moved to quash the aforesaid writ of ground that, as the decision sought to be executed merely declared the defendants owners of the property, and did not order its delivery to said parties, the writ putting them in possession thereof was at variance with the decision and, consequently, null and void.

This motion was denied by order of the court of February 28, 1959. Plaintiffs then filed an urgentex-partemotion "for clarification and/or to declare null and void the Sheriffs execution", complaining that notwithstanding the filing of their motion to quash, the Clerk of Court and the Provincial Sheriff placed defendants in possession of the property. After hearing the motion, during which the complained officials testified and explained their actuations, the court declared the same with legal effect and valid, and dismissed plaintiffs' motion.

This incident was followed by defendants' praying the court to declare plaintiffs in contempt for resisting its lawful order (to deliver possession of the land), which precipitated the issuance of an order, dated June 30, 1959, allowing defendants "to surround their property with a fence and any act or acts by other persons or parties in including the plaintiffs to intervene may be considered as an act of contempt."

Plaintiffs moved to set aside the above order. The same having been denied on July 11, 1959, plaintiffs instituted the instant appeal assailing the legality of the orders of June 30 (ordering the fencing of the lot) and July 11, 1959 (denying their motion to set aside said previous order).

Plaintiffs-appellants, in resisting the trial court's orders upon the theory that the adjudication of ownership does not include possession of the property, rely upon two (2) cases decided by this Court. The first is Talens v. Garcia (87 Phil. 173), where, after quoting Section 45 of Rule 39, the Court said:

It may be admitted that the judgment absolving defendant Talens was in effect a declaration that the sale to him was valid. It may also be admitted, though with Some reluctance or reservation, that it was a declaration of ownership of the lot. But it is doubtful whether it also included a direction to surrender it to him. Although it is true that the owner is generally entitled to possession, it is equally true that there may be cases where the actual possessor has some rights which must be respected or defined. A lessee is not the owner; yet a declaration of ownership in another person does not necessarily mean his ouster.

In the second case (Jabon, et al. v. Alo, et al., G.R. No. L-5094, decided August 7, 1952), the following pronouncement is found:

.... In the absence of any other declaration, can we consider a mere declaration of ownership as necessarily in eluding the profession of the property adjudicated? We do not believe so, for ownership is different from possession. A person may be declared owner, but he may not be entitled to possession. The possession may be in the hands of another either as a lessee or a tenant. A person may have improvements thereon of which he may not be deprived without due hearing. He may have other valid defenses to resist surrender of possession. We, therefore, hold that a judgment for ownership, does not necessarily include possession as a necessary incident.

It may be observed that in both decisions, this Court underscored the possibility that the actual possessor has some rights which must be respected and defined. It is thus evident that the pronouncement was made having in mind cases wherein the actual possessorhas a valid rightover the property enforceable even against the owner thereof. As example, we gave the cases of tenants and lessees. However, it is our view that the above doctrine may not be invoked in instanceswhere no such right may be appreciatedin favor of the possessor. In the instant case there spears in the appealed order of June 30, 1959, the specific finding of the trial court that "the plaintiffs have not given any reason why they are retaining the possession ID the property". (p. 57, Record on Appeal.) This factual finding can not be reviewed in this instance as the appeal has been taken to us directly only a question of law. (p. 72, Record on Appeal.)

Under Section 45 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, which reads:

SEC. 45.What is deemed to have been adjudged.— That only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, orwhich was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary there to. (Emphasis supplied)

a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision, but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. Thus, in a land registration case¹wherein ownership was adjudged, we allowed the issuance of a writ of demolition (to remove the improvements existing on the land), for being necessarily included in the judgment. Considering that herein plaintiffs-appellants have no other claim to possession of the property apart from their claim of ownership which was rejected by the lower court consequently has no right to remain thereon after such ownership was adjudged to defendants-appellees, the delivery of possession of the land should be considered included in the decision. Indeed it would be defeating the ends of justice should we require that for herein appellees to obtain possession of the property duly adjudged to be theirs, from those who have no right to wit to court litigations anew. Thus, in the Mencias case,supra, we said:

Apparently, respondent Judge in refusing to issue the writ of demolition to petitioner, was of the belief that the latter has another remedy, namely, by resorting to ordinary civil actions in the regular courts, such as that of forcible entry and detainer, or the recovery of possession, in which instances, said courts would then be competent to issue said writ. Such a situation, in our opinion, could not have been intended by the law.To require a successful litigant in a land registration case to institute another action for the purpose of obtaining possession of the land adjudged to him would be a cumbersome process. It would foster unnecessary and expensive litigations and result in multiplicity of suit, which our judicial system abhors.

x x x x x x x x x

.... Pursuant to the provision just quoted (Sec. 6, Rule 124), respondent Judge has the power to issue all auxiliary writs,including the writ of demolition sought by petitioner, processes and other means necessary to carry into effect the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law in land registration cases to issue a writ of possession to the successful litigant, the petitioner herein. (Emphasis supplied.)

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants. So ordered.

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