Facts:

In the case of Aniceto Alejandro vs. Diego Locsin, Juez de Primera Instancia de Rizal, and Protasio Oteysa, decided on April 30, 1941, the facts are as follows: The petitioner, Aniceto Alejandro, sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Diego Locsin and Protasio Oteysa. Alejandro aimed to compel the judge to approve his appeal record concerning a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on May 23, 1940, which affirmed a lower court's ruling against him in Civil Case No. 6739, where Oteysa claimed P86 as a balance of a debt totaling P257. The lower court (Court of First Instance of Rizal) had ruled in favor of Oteysa on October 13, 1937, despite Alejandro's absence, declaring him in default. Following the decision, Alejandro appealed but had his motion for reconsideration denied, resulting in the decision's finality, which mandated enforcement. In a related case (Civil Case No. 6684), the court recognized Mario Cristi as the rightful administrator of property at issue

...

Facts:

Background and Procedural Context

• The petitioner, Anicieto Alejandro, initiated a petition for mandamus against Diego Locsin, Judge of the First Instance of Rizal, as well as against Protasio Oteysa.
• He sought two main reliefs:
• To compel the judge to approve the appeal docket he had registered, together with the associated bond of P200.
• To secure the issuance of a preliminary prohibitory injunction to forestall the execution of a final decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 3148, promulgated on May 23, 1940.

Civil Case No. 6739 and Its Developments

• In Civil Case No. 6739 at the First Instance Court of Rizal, Protasio Oteysa filed an action against Anciteto Alejandro seeking P86 as the balance of a debt originally amounting to P257, plus costs.
• The court issued a judgment on October 13, 1937, finding Alejandro in default (declared in rebelia), where the plaintiff’s evidence was submitted in his absence.
• Alejandro appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals, which confirmed the decision on May 23, 1940 (in CA-G.R. No. 3148).
• Subsequent motions for reconsideration and for invoking the then-applicable Article 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by Alejandro but were both denied.

Concurrent Proceedings and Related Controversies

• Parallel to Civil Case No. 6739, there was Civil Case No. 6684 initiated by Protasio Oteysa against Eugenio Cristi (later substituted by his judicial administrator, Mario Cristi).
• On April 25, 1940, while the appeal in Civil Case No. 6739 was pending, the First Instance Court in Civil Case No. 6684 rendered a decision:
• It declared that Mario Cristi was the owner of the questioned property.
• It ordered Anciteto Alejandro to pay Protasio Oteysa an additional amount of P40, with Alejandro bearing the costs.
• In this proceeding, although Alejandro was not a direct party, he intervened as a third party, reiterating similar defenses.

Claims and Contentions of the Petitioner

• Alejandro contended that there was a contradiction between the two judicial decisions:
• The decision of the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No. 6739, which upheld the debt claim, and
• The decision in Civil Case No. 6684, wherein it was determined that he neither received nor owed the sum of P257.
• He argued that the document executed in his favor by Protasio Oteysa, which ostensibly recognized his indebtedness, was in reality simulated.
• Instead of evidencing a bona fide sale with a pact of retro, it purportedly constituted a mortgage that served as security solely for a P257 obligation.
• Moreover, he maintained that the so-called interest charged (alleged to be usurious) was not a legitimate receivable.
• Alejandro vigorously maintained that:
• The order of August 15, 1940, denying his motion to suspend the execution of the appeal decision, was illegal.
• The subsequent order of September 14, 1940, which disapproved the appeal docket and the bond, was likewise illegal and tainted with an abuse of judicial discretion.

Judicial Chronology and the Interlocutory Nature of the Orders

• The trial court’s order of denial on July 9 and August 15, 1940, rejected Alejandro’s motion to stay the execution of the decision by the Court of Appeals.
• Upon approaching the appropriate procedural steps—filing his appeal docket along with the requisite bond—the court, on September 14, 1940, disapproved them, citing that the prior denial order (August 15, 1940) was inapelable.
• These actions formed the basis for Alejandro’s present petition for mandamus.

Arguments Raised by Protasio Oteysa and Subsequent Judicial Reasoning

• Oteysa’s claim was anchored in a document allegedly signed by Alejandro, acknowledging a debt of P257—remedied by partial payment (P171) that left a balance of P86.
• The lower courts and the Court of Appeals had already adjudicated these matters, rejecting Alejandro’s defense that the contract was merely a simulated mortgage rather than a bona fide sale with a pact of retro.
• The argument advanced by Alejandro—that the enforcement of the appellate decision would conflict with the favorable ruling in Civil Case No. 6684—was determined to be lacking adequate merit and was addressed in previous judicial determinations.

Issue:

• Whether the orders dated August 15, 1940 (denying the motion to suspend the execution of the appellate decision) and September 14, 1940 (disapproving the appeal docket and bond) were proper, legally non-appealable, and did not violate principles of due process.
• Whether activating the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 3148, despite the subsequent decision in Civil Case No. 6684, created an irreconcilable conflict that would justify the suspension of its execution.
• Whether Alejandro’s assertion that the document executed (purporting to be a contract of sale with pact of retro) was in reality a simulated mortgage, and if this defense should be reconsidered despite its prior resolution by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)