Title
Azotes vs. Blanco
Case
G.R. No. L-962
Decision Date
Jul 28, 1947
Land dispute: Azotes challenges reconstituted record, contempt ruling after reentering land post-judgment; SC upholds validity, jurisdiction, dismisses petition.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-962)

Facts:

  1. Judgment and Execution:
    In the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, a judgment was rendered in civil case No. 11396, where respondent Julian Figura sued petitioner Felix Azotes over the title and possession of a parcel of land. The judgment against Azotes became final and executory, and the property was delivered to Figura in 1940.

  2. Reconstitution of Records:
    After liberation, the case record was reconstituted, and a new writ of execution was issued on June 3, 1946. However, this writ was set aside upon Azotes' motion, arguing that the judgment had already been executed before the war.

  3. Motion for Contempt:
    On August 1, 1946, Figura filed a motion for contempt against Azotes, alleging that Azotes had cut bamboo from the land delivered to Figura and continued to deprive him of possession. Azotes was summoned to appear on September 13, 1946, but failed to do so, leading to his arrest for contempt.

  4. Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari:
    Azotes filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari, challenging the reconstitution of the record and the court's jurisdiction to punish him for contempt over acts occurring more than five years after the execution of the judgment.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Presumption of Attorney Authority:
    An attorney who appears in court on behalf of a litigant is presumed to have authority to act unless proven otherwise. Azotes failed to provide evidence that Evidente & Evidente no longer represented him.

  2. No Time Limit for Contempt:
    Rule 64, Section 3(h) does not impose a time limit for punishing contemptuous acts of reentry into property delivered by court order. The five-year limitation under Rule 39, Section 6 applies only to motions for execution, not to contempt proceedings.

  3. Admission of Judgment Execution:
    Azotes' admission that the judgment had been executed before the war undermined his challenge to the reconstituted record, as it confirmed the existence and validity of the judgment.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed Azotes' petition, upholding the validity of the reconstituted record and the trial court's jurisdiction to punish him for contempt. Costs were imposed against Azotes.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.