Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49648)
Facts:
The case involves Loreta Cabrias and Cresencio Cabarga as petitioners against Hon. Midpantao L. Adil, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, along with private respondents Candida Cabanas, Aurora Cabanas, and Venancio Cabanas. The events leading to this case began on January 29, 1968, when the petitioners filed a complaint for forcible entry against the respondents in the Municipal Court of Leon, Iloilo, concerning a parcel of land measuring approximately 6,987 square meters located in Barangay Buga, Leon, Iloilo, specifically known as Assessor's Lot No. 317-part. The petitioners claimed that the respondents had usurped this land.
During the trial, the Municipal Court appointed officials to delimit the boundaries of the disputed land. On May 11, 1971, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to vacate the premises and pay damages. The respondents appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where the case was re...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49648)
Facts:
Initial Complaint and Trial:
On January 29, 1968, petitioners Loreta Cabrias and Cresencio Cabarga filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondents Candida Cabanas, Aurora Cabanas, and Venancio Cabanas in the Municipal Court of Leon, Iloilo. The case involved the recovery of possession of a parcel of land known as Assessor's Lot No. 317-part, which the respondents allegedly usurped. The Municipal Court commissioned officials to delimit the boundaries of the land. On May 11, 1971, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to vacate the land and pay damages.Appeal to the Court of First Instance:
The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 9002. On September 22, 1975, the court affirmed the Municipal Court's decision, ordering the respondents to vacate the land, pay damages, and deliver certain agricultural products to the petitioners. The writ of preliminary injunction was made permanent.Execution of Judgment:
No appeal was filed, and a writ of execution was issued on November 12, 1975. However, the petitioners occupied Lot 359, an adjacent lot belonging to the respondents, claiming it was the subject of the dispute. They destroyed a house, harvested crops, and cut bamboo on the land.Relocation Survey and Contempt Proceedings:
The respondent judge ordered a relocation survey, which revealed that the petitioners were occupying Lot 359, not Lot 317-part. The judge issued an order on April 26, 1978, directing the petitioners to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for occupying the wrong lot.Alias Writ of Execution and Suspension of Auction:
On August 3, 1978, the judge issued an alias writ of execution. The respondents filed motions to declare the petitioners in contempt and to annul the public auction sale of their properties. On October 2, 1978, the judge suspended the auction sale, and on November 22, 1978, ordered the petitioners to vacate Lot 359.Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration:
The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the judge had no jurisdiction over Lot 359 and that the respondents should file a separate civil action. The motions were denied, prompting the petitioners to file the present petition for certiorari.
Issue:
- Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction to order the petitioners to vacate Lot 359, which was not the subject of the original case.
- Whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in suspending the public auction sale and holding the alias writ of execution in abeyance.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)