Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32570)
Facts:
The case involves Albetz Investments, Inc. as the petitioner and the spouses Ricardo Calma and Vicenta D. Calma, along with the spouses Francisco Umengan and Maria R. Umengan, as respondents. The events leading to the case began when the Calma spouses were leasing a property located at Lot No. 27 pt., Block No. BP-52, Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Albetz Investments, Inc., the lessor, sought to reclaim the property to construct a new building. When the Calma spouses refused to vacate, Albetz Investments initiated an unlawful detainer action against them, resulting in a default judgment on March 30, 1964, ordering the Calma spouses to vacate the premises and pay rent. Following the finality of this judgment, Albetz Investments filed a motion for execution, which was granted, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution on July 1, 1964.
The Sheriff reported on September 12, 1964, that the Calma spouses had not vacated the property. Subsequently, the Calma spouses fil...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32570)
Facts:
Lease and Unlawful Detainer Case
- The Calma spouses were lessees of Lot No. 27 pt., Block No. BP-52, located at No. 816 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila, owned by Albetz Investments, Inc.
- Albetz Investments, needing the premises to construct a new building, demanded the Calma spouses vacate the property. Upon refusal, Albetz filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 119712) against Vicenta Calma.
- The Municipal Court rendered a default judgment on March 30, 1964, ordering Vicenta Calma and all persons claiming under her to vacate the premises and pay corresponding rentals.
Execution and Demolition Proceedings
- The judgment became final, and Albetz Investments filed a motion for execution, which was granted. A writ of execution was issued on July 1, 1964.
- The Sheriff reported on September 12, 1964, that the Calma spouses had not vacated or demolished their house.
- Vicenta Calma filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 58246) to suspend the execution. The Municipal Court suspended proceedings pending resolution of the certiorari case.
- The certiorari petition was denied, and Vicenta Calma appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Albetz Investments filed a motion for demolition on February 9, 1965, which was opposed by the Calma spouses.
- On April 29, 1965, the Municipal Court granted the Calma spouses 30 days to vacate and remove their house, failing which a demolition order would issue. The Calma spouses failed to comply, and a demolition order was issued on June 21, 1965.
Demolition and Subsequent Actions
- The Calma spouses filed another action for specific performance with injunction (Civil Case No. 63549) on December 2, 1965, seeking to compel Albetz Investments to sell the lot to them. This case was dismissed on February 15, 1966.
- On February 19, 1966, the Sheriff, at the instance of Albetz Investments, demolished the Calma spouses' house without a new writ or order, relying on the June 21, 1965 demolition order.
- The Calma spouses and the Umengan spouses (occupants of the ground floor) filed an action for damages, alleging the demolition was illegal and indiscriminate, causing damage to their personal properties.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Validity of the Demolition Order: The demolition order issued on June 21, 1965, remained valid and enforceable. The Calma spouses were given sufficient time to comply and were aware of the order, as evidenced by their opposition to the motion for demolition and their subsequent legal actions to delay enforcement.
- Notice of Demolition: The Calma spouses were not entitled to additional notice of the demolition order. The law does not require a new writ or order for demolition once a valid order has been issued and the defeated party has failed to comply within the granted period.
- Manner of Demolition: The demolition was carried out in an indiscriminate and careless manner, causing unnecessary damage to the plaintiffs' personal properties. The Sheriff and Albetz Investments failed to act with due regard for the safety and preservation of the plaintiffs' belongings.
- Violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code: Albetz Investments, through its lawyer and the Sheriff, acted in a manner inconsistent with justice and good faith. The swift and unconscionable manner of the demolition deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to remove their personal properties, resulting in undue prejudice.
The Court emphasized that while Albetz Investments had the legal right to recover possession of the property, this right should have been exercised in a manner consistent with justice, fairness, and good faith.