Case Digest (G.R. No. 153063-70)
Facts:
In the case of Marcelino Arnado vs. Court of First Instance-Cebu, Branch IX, Marcela Arrogancia, et al., G.R. No. L-38317, decided on September 22, 1976, Marcelino Arnado, through his heirs, contested an order from the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The original dispute arose in 1956 when Arnado initiated a lawsuit against his mother, Marcela Arrogancia, claiming ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Tabuelan, Cebu. The trial court ruled in favor of Arrogancia, declaring her the sole owner and dismissing Arnado's complaint with costs. Arnado subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's decision on May 10, 1965. This judgment was executed appropriately. However, on February 1, 1972, the private respondents sought an alias writ of execution, citing that Arnado's wife had entered the property and constructed a house, thus refusing to vacate despite demands. The respondent court, upon receiving this motion, issued an order on November 23,Case Digest (G.R. No. 153063-70)
Facts:
In 1956, Marcelino Arnado (now represented by his heirs) filed a complaint against his mother, Marcela Arrogancia, before the Court of First Instance of Cebu for possession and ownership of a parcel of land in Tabuelan, Cebu. The CFI ruled in favor of Marcela Arrogancia, declaring her the sole owner of the property and dismissing Marcelino’s complaint, along with ordering him to pay attorney’s fees. Marcelino appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision on May 10, 1965, and the judgment was duly executed.Later, on February 1, 1972, private respondents (relating to Marcelino’s wife) filed a motion seeking an alias writ of execution, alleging that Marcelino’s wife had taken possession of the property and built a house there, refusing to vacate upon demand. Acting on this motion, the respondent court issued, on November 23, 1973, an order directing a deputy sheriff to turn over the physical possession of the property to the private respondents and to remove the house built by the petitioners. The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the November 23, 1973 order. The respondents, however, indicated a change in their position, expressing a desire to forego the demolition and instead pursue the partition of the land among themselves and the children of the late Marcelino Arnado.
Issues:
- Whether the order issued on November 23, 1973, ordering the removal of the house built by Marcelino’s wife, was issued with proper jurisdiction.
- Whether such an order can be validly enforced given that the motion to execute was filed well beyond the permissible period (eight years after the judgment was executed), considering that judgments must be enforced within five years from the date of entry or when they become final and executory.
- Whether the petitioners were afforded due process, particularly an opportunity to be heard regarding the demolition of the house—a structure built by Marcelino’s wife, a party not originally involved in the litigated ownership dispute.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)