G.R. No. L-37051 - Lorenzana vs. Cayetano

Petitioner Anita U. Lorenzana leased (and later purchased) a quonset hut with a floor area of 360 square meters located in the San Lazaro Estate, Manila, including the use of adjacent land north and south totaling 340 square meters.
Respondent Polly Cayetano occupied the 340 square meter area north of the quonset hut, on which her house stood, and from which she had a separate lease from the Manila Railroad Company and later the Bureau of Lands.
The areas occupied by Lorenzana and Cayetano were adjacent but separately leased.

In 1958, Lorenzana filed ejectment cases against her tenants occupying stalls in the quonset hut for nonpayment of rent.
The Municipal Court of Manila ruled in favor of the petitioner; the Court of First Instance (Branch I) affirmed and ordered defendants to vacate.
Due to refusal of tenants to vacate, a writ of demolition was issued on July 20, 1959, authorizing demolition of the premises subject of the ejectment cases.
On July 27, 1959, petitioner, her counsel, and Deputy Sheriff executed the writ entering the premises and demolished improvements—including some on Cayetano’s adjacent property despite her protests. They extended the fence 5 meters into her property.

Respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner, her counsel, and the deputy sheriff in contempt on August 3, 1959.
The court placed the contempt motion in abeyance until final decision in ejectment cases.
On September 28, 1959, the Court granted a second writ of demolition covering approximately 700 square meters, including lands occupied by respondent.
On October 1, 1959, petitioner moved the illegally placed fence further into respondent’s property; respondent filed a motion to suspend demolition, which was denied on October 2, 1959.
Respondent filed an ex parte motion to withdraw her petition for contempt in February 1960, acknowledging not being a party to the ejectment cases.

On October 1, 1959, respondent filed Civil Case No. 42001 for damages with mandatory injunction against petitioner, her counsel, and deputy sheriff for unlawful demolition and trespass.
Trial court dismissed respondent’s complaint and defendants’ counterclaim for lack of evidence on March 9, 1962.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered petitioner to restore the respondent’s property and pay damages jointly with the deputy sheriff.

Whether the writ of demolition issued could legally be executed against respondent who was not a party to the ejectment cases.
Whether respondent waived her rights by not pursuing remedies before higher courts.
Whether an action for recovery of damages is a valid collateral attack against the writ of demolition.
Whether the issuance of the writ violated Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding notice before demolition.

Manila Railroad Company leased the quonset hut and adjacent yard by public bidding to Lorenzana after a lawsuit compelling lease award.
Lorenzana purchased the quonset hut in 1953 and leased stalls to tenants.
Administration of the land transferred to the Bureau of Lands, which recognized Lorenzana’s lease.
The tenants also applied directly for leasing the land, causing conflicting applications and investigations.
Director of Lands ruled in favor of Lorenzana.
Fire damaged the quonset hut, which Lorenzana repaired with Bureau permission.
Ejectment cases and subsequent enforcement by writ of demolition targeted only tenants' occupancy of the hut, not respondent’s separately leased property.

Whether the writs of demolition issued in ejectment cases against petitioner’s tenants could be legally enforced against respondent Polly Cayetano, who was not a party to the cases.
Whether respondent’s failure to pursue remedies before higher courts or file motions to quash or certiorari amounted to waiver of her right to contest the demolition order and enforce her property rights.
Whether an action for damages and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent constitutes an improper collateral attack on an executory writ of demolition.
Whether the issuance and enforcement of the writs of demolition violated Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court requiring notice to judgment debtors prior to demolishing improvements on the property subject to execution.