Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24787)
Facts:
Tumipus Mangayao and Guimanda Bubungan v. Honorable Doroteo de Guzman, Santay Lasud, and Guintana Cia Lasud, G.R. No. L-24787. February 22, 1974, Supreme Court First Division, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Tumipus Mangayao and Guimanda Bubungan, members of the Subano tribe, initiated an action for recovery of property and declaration of nullity of contract against private respondents Santay Lasud and Guintana Cia Lasud in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur (Civil Case No. 575) on March 21, 1960. The trial court ruled for petitioners; that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mangayao v. Lasud, L-19252, May 29, 1964, and said decision became final and executory on October 5, 1964.
Pursuant to the final judgment, petitioners were placed in possession of the property on April 1, 1965, and private respondents were reimbursed P5,000 as ordered. Despite the finality of the Supreme Court’s ruling, private respondents filed another action in the same Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 798) seeking annulment of that judgment and obtained an order from respondent Judge restraining petitioners from executing the Supreme Court judgment. The order of the lower court dated April 29, 1965 (issuing a preliminary injunction) prompted petitioners to file a certiorari proceeding in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court promptly required answers and, by resolution, issued a writ of preliminary injunction (resolution of September 10, 1965). After receiving the answers of respondent Judge and private respondents, the Supreme Court evaluated whether an inferior court could reopen and restrain execution of a judgment of t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent Judge commit a jurisdictional infirmity or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by issuing an order restraining execution of a final and executory judgment of this Court?
- Was the action by private respondents to annul the Supreme Court’s final judgment in an inferior court proper, notwithstanding the law of the case and statutory protections for i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)