Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17482)
Facts:
Genoveva R. Jabonete, et al. v. Juliana Monteverde, et al., G.R. No. L-17482, March 31, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court. The dispute arose from the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao's decision of March 11, 1954 in Case No. 824 (Jabonete v. Monteverde et al.), which ordered the defendant Antonio Legaspi to demolish a part of his corral and declared that the plaintiffs had the right to use a three-meter-wide alley (vereda, Exh. A-3) as the only outlet to Calle Tomas Claudio for passage of their jeeps and other vehicles. Legaspi received a copy of this decision on May 12, 1954 and filed a notice of appeal on May 14, 1954.On May 21, 1954 the lower court, upon a motion by the plaintiffs, granted discretionary execution of the March 11 decision; the plaintiffs immediately opened an opening in Legaspi's fence. Legaspi filed a motion for reconsideration the same day. The court conducted an ocular inspection and, on May 24, 1954, the parties entered into an amicable agreement which the court embodied in an order. That order (the May 24 order) (1) restricted the plaintiffs from installing a repair shop on their lot, (2) permitted them to build a garage within their lot but not to park on the private way, (3) provided for pro rata repair expenses, (4) permitted plaintiffs and their family/friends/drivers/servants and their jeeps to use the private way built by Legaspi, and (5) allowed plaintiffs to open a 4-meter door in Legaspi's corral for access, at plaintiffs' expense; the court ordered strict compliance under pain of its orders.
As a result of the May 24, 1954 order Legaspi abandoned his appeal, and both parties complied with the terms until December 1959 when the original plaintiffs moved elsewhere; Legaspi then rebuilt his fence and closed the opening. The lot was foreclosed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) which later conveyed it under conditional sale to Mrs. Luz Arcilla. On acquiring the lot Mrs. Arcilla demanded reopening the fence; Legaspi refused. DBP filed a petition in the CFI to hold Legaspi in contempt for disobeying the March 11, 1954 decision; Mrs. Arcilla intervened. After hearing, the CFI on March...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the May 24, 1954 order embodying the parties' agreement novate or supersede the CFI's March 11, 1954 decision so that the latter no longer had legal effect?
- If the March 11, 1954 decision remained operative, did respondent Legaspi's refusal to reopen the fence constitute contempt given the nature of the easement established by the May 24, 1954 order?
- Did prescription bar contempt proceedings against Legaspi for alleged vi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)