Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38317)
Facts:
The case involves Marcelino Arnado (now represented by his heirs as petitioners) as the petitioner against the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IX, and his mother, Marcela Arrogancia, along with other private respondents. The events date back to 1956 when Arnado filed a lawsuit against his mother for the possession and ownership of a parcel of land located in Tabuelan, Cebu. After a trial, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Marcela Arrogancia, declaring her the sole and exclusive owner of the property and dismissing Arnado's complaint with costs. Additionally, Arnado was ordered to pay his mother P300.00 as attorney's fees. Dissatisfied with this decision, Arnado appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling on May 10, 1965. The judgment was executed accordingly. However, on February 1, 1972, the private respondents filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, claiming that Arnado's wife had entered the property ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38317)
Facts:
Initial Dispute Over Land Ownership:
In 1956, Marcelino Arnado (petitioner) filed a case against his mother, Marcela Arrogancia, before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking possession and ownership of a parcel of land in Tabuelan, Cebu. The court ruled in favor of Marcela, declaring her the sole and exclusive owner of the property and dismissing Marcelino's complaint. Marcelino was also ordered to pay his mother P300.00 as attorney's fees.Appeal and Affirmation:
Marcelino appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling on May 10, 1965. The judgment was subsequently executed.Subsequent Intrusion and Motion for Alias Writ of Execution:
On February 1, 1972, the private respondents (Marcela's heirs) filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, alleging that Marcelino's wife had entered the property, built a house, and refused to vacate despite demands.Order for Demolition:
On November 23, 1973, the respondent court issued an order directing the deputy sheriff to turn over the physical possession of the property to the private respondents and to remove the house built by Marcelino's wife.Petition to Annul the Order:
Marcelino's heirs filed the present petition to annul the November 23, 1973 order, arguing that it was issued without jurisdiction and was patently null and void.Private Respondents' Manifestation:
The private respondents later manifested that they no longer wished to pursue the demolition of the house and were instead interested in partitioning the land among themselves and Marcelino's heirs.
Issue:
- Whether the respondent court had jurisdiction to issue the November 23, 1973 order for demolition after the judgment in the original case had already been executed and the file closed.
- Whether the order for demolition was valid, considering that the intrusion by Marcelino's wife occurred after the judgment had become final and executory.
- Whether the private respondents should have filed a separate action instead of seeking an alias writ of execution after the lapse of eight years from the finality of the judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)