Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10736)
Facts:
Emiliano Acuna and Nieves B. Acuna v. The Honorable Hermogenes Caluag, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV; Guillermo Romero; and Reynaldo T. Santos, G.R. No. L-10736. April 30, 1957, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.
On April 21, 1950, petitioners Emiliano Acuna and Nieves B. Acuna executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Reynaldo T. Santos to secure a P25,000 loan (12% interest), with insurance and liquidated-damages/attorney-fee undertakings. Santos filed a foreclosure complaint on May 2, 1951 (Civil Case No. 1433, CFI Rizal). On August 1, 1951, the parties submitted a written agreement reducing liquidated damages to P500 and consenting to judgment; the trial court rendered judgment per that agreement. The judgment became final, a writ of execution issued December 20, 1951, and the mortgaged properties were sold to Santos (certificate of sale dated February 23, 1952), approved March 10, 1952. A writ of possession was ordered May 10, 1952, and issued May 15, 1952.
Petitioners sought an extension to vacate on June 27, 1952, which was denied July 2, 1952 as the decision was final and the court had “no more jurisdiction over the same.” Nearly a year later, on June 2, 1953, the trial court issued an alias writ of possession. On June 9, 1953, the parties executed an “Agreement and Petition” (Annex D) whereby the Acunas offered to purchase the properties for P40,000 payable by December 31, 1953, and to pay P500 monthly for occupation; the agreement stated it was not a lease and reserved plaintiff’s right to enforce the writ of possession upon default.
When the court found alleged noncompliance with the June 9 agreement, it issued an order on September 23, 1953 directing issuance of an alias writ of possession; the Clerk issued the writ the same day. On May 8, 1954 petitioners moved to quash that alias writ, asserting novation by the June 9 agreement and that the writ had lapsed after sixty days; the trial court ordered the Sheriff to refrain from enforcing the writ pending further order. On July 8, 1954 the judge again ordered issuance of an alias writ of possession; petitioners appealed that order to the Supreme Court (perfected appeal docketed as G.R. No. L-8881, entitled "Reynaldo T. Santos vs. Emiliano Acuna, et al.").
Despite the pending appeal, on October 28, 1955 respondent Judge appointed Guillermo Romero as receiver of the properties over petitioners’ opposition. On February 7, 1956 the court ordered the Sheriff to place the receiver in possession; on February 27, 1956 it ordered Acuna to surrender possession under penalty of contempt. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (dated in the record as March 8, 1954) and later sought relief in this petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction, alleging the trial judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction because the appeal had deprived the court of power to order delivery of possession.
In answer, respondents argued that although perfection of an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the merits, the court retains jurisdiction to preserve property involved in the appeal, including authority to appoint a receiver to take and keep possession (citing Rule 6...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the perfection of the appeal (G.R. No. L-8881) deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to appoint a receiver and to order delivery of possession of the mortgaged properties?
- Were the orders appointing the receiver and directing delivery of possession issued with grave abuse of discretion or otherwise void, such that cert...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)