G.R. No. 216920 - Quisay vs. People

Ricardo Abad y de Mesa died on October 1, 1971, in Manila as an intestate and a bachelor who, although never legally married, had a common-law wife, Honoria Empaynado, with whom he cohabited for 27 years and with whom he had two acknowledged natural children (Cecilia E. Abad and Marian E. Abad).
He also fathered another acknowledged natural child, Rosemarie Abad y Seracho, with Dolores Seracho.
The deceased was survived by his three natural children (all surnamed Abad), his common-law wife Honoria Empaynado, and collateral relatives including petitioners Dolores de Mesa Abad (full-blood sister), Cesar de Mesa Tioseco (half-blood brother on the mother’s side), and Carolina de Mesa Abad (alleged half-sister).

On April 18, 1972, petitioners Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar Tioseco, through counsel, filed a Petition for Settlement and Administration (Special Proceedings No. 86792) before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIX.
The petition listed real properties (with corresponding Transfer Certificate Numbers) which belonged to the deceased, acquired through ancient deeds of sale:

Although the original petition did not include the three certificates of title (kept by the deceased in a safe deposit box at the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank), these were later inventoried on April 20, 1972, which enabled a complete technical description of the properties.

On May 2, 1972, Dolores de Mesa Abad, Cesar Tioseco, and Carolina de Mesa Abad executed an instrument purporting an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their deceased mother, Lucila de Mesa, thereby adjudicating different parcels to themselves (with TCT assignments clearly delineated among them).
Petitioners accordingly amended their original petition on May 9, 1972 to include an additional paragraph describing the real properties and asserting that such properties, though legally vested in the deceased's name, were in fact those of their late mother and only under his administration.
The petition was set for hearing on June 9, 1972. Notably, the names of the deceased’s acknowledged natural children and his common-law wife were omitted from the petition.
On June 14, 1972, based on ex-parte evidence by the petitioners, the Intestate Court issued an order appointing Cesar Tioseco as administrator. Subsequently, letters of administration were issued on June 16, 1972.

On July 24, 1972, Honoria Empaynado and the deceased’s natural children, upon discovering the pending proceedings, filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking the revocation of Cesar Tioseco’s appointment.
The trial court, after receiving evidence, on November 2, 1973, declared Honoria Empaynado and the deceased’s children as the rightful heirs, thus excluding the petitioners and appointing Honoria Empaynado as administratrix. Reconsideration and subsequent appeals by the petitioners were denied as untimely.
Separately, on November 26, 1980, the Intestate Estate (represented by Honoria Empaynado) filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and damages against Marietta Escultero concerning Lot No. 6 (TCT No. 53671) located at 2313 Jacobo, Singalong, Manila, alleging unauthorized occupation and construction on the property.
On September 4, 1986, respondent Judge Corona Ibay Somera delivered a decision restoring the property’s possession to the estate. In her decision, she noted that although the hereditary rights were still under litigation due to pending appeals and a Supreme Court resolution dated July 9, 1985, the de facto possession of the property was attributable to the late Ricardo Abad and his estate.

On March 10, 1988, petitioners Dolores de Mesa Abad and Marietta Escultero (represented by Carolina Abad Gonzales) filed a petition for Contempt alleging that:

The decision rendered on September 4, 1986, by Judge Somera was in contempt of the Supreme Court resolution of July 9, 1985, which had set aside previous lower court orders.
Both Judge Somera and Atty. Amador E. Sagalongos (counsel for Honoria Empaynado) were implicated for their alleged contumacious and ultra vires acts.
Such acts purportedly jeopardized the petitioners’ substantial rights and affected the preservation of the status quo concerning the estate’s administration.

Judge Somera, in her comment, acknowledged the Supreme Court resolution but maintained that her decision on possession was confined to establishing who held de facto possession and did not contravene the higher court’s directives.

Whether Judge Corona Ibay Somera’s decision in the Recovery of Possession case constitutes an act of contempt by disobeying the Supreme Court resolution of July 9, 1985.
Whether the actions of Atty. Amador E. Sagalongos, as counsel to Honoria Empaynado, can be construed as contemptuous given the allegations of wilful disregard of the Supreme Court’s mandate.
Whether the determination on possession in Civil Case No. R-82-5879, strictly addressing the de facto possession of the property, falls outside the ambit of the Supreme Court’s resolution, and thus, if it is immune from a contempt finding.
Whether the petitioners’ allegations of “contumacious acts” are legally sustainable under the provisions of Sub-paragraph B, Section 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court when examined against settled jurisprudence on indirect contempt.