Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39430)
Facts:
Francisco Manlapaz, Delfin Sangcap, Domingo Sangcap, Pedro Cunanan, Fausto De La Pena and Honorata De La Pena v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Lorenzo R. Mosqueda, Hon. Judge Virgilio Canivel, Teodoro Rivera, Pablo Rivera, Renato Rivera and Bonifacio Rivera, G.R. No. L-39430, December 03, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the group of Manlapaz, Sangcaps, Cunanan and De la Penas) were defendants below; the Riveras (Teodoro, Pablo, Renato, Bonifacio and Hernando) were plaintiffs in an ejectment action filed October 20, 1971 in the Municipal Court of Candaba, Pampanga as Civil Case No. 425, alleging forcible ouster of the Riveras from several lots in Bahay Pare which they had occupied and cultivated for over ten years.
Petitioners answered, denying material allegations and asserting lack of jurisdiction because a related case, Civil Case No. 79371, was pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila (judicial review/annulment of an Office of the President decision affecting awards of the lots). The parties then entered into a formal stipulation of facts identifying the disputed lots as public land, confirming competing administrative awards and appeals, and acknowledging that (among other points) the Land Authority and then the Office of the President had issued conflicting dispositions and that Civil Case No. 79371 was pending when the ejectment was filed.
On February 27, 1974, the Municipal Court of Candaba rendered judgment for the Riveras ordering petitioners to vacate and pay rentals. Petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Macabebe, Pampanga (Civil Case No. 73-70-M). During the appeal, the Riveras moved for execution pending appeal because petitioners had not filed a supersedeas bond; the CFI granted execution on April 2, 1974. Petitioners sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-02996) and obtained a preliminary injunction on a P2,000 cash bond, but on June 3, 1974 the Court of Appeals dismissed and denied certiorari and set aside the preliminary injunction. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration at the Court of Appeals allegedly remained unresolved, and execution proceeded.
Petitioners filed a special civil action in the Supreme Court for certiorari and mandamus with a prayer for preliminary injunction contesting the issuance of the writ of execution and the jurisdiction of the municipal court. The Supreme Court con...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the writ of execution issued pending appeal proper where petitioners failed to file a supersedeas bond as required to stay execution?
- Did the Municipal Court of Candaba lack jurisdiction over the ejectment action because ownership was in dispute in Civil Case No. 79371 before the Court of First Instance of Manila and because Presidential Decree No. 316 required prior referral to t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)