G.R. No. L-19520 - Nacorda vs. Yatco

Civil Case No. Q-4108 was originally instituted by J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. against Fernando Castro.
The complaint sought the recovery of possession of a parcel of land measuring about 100 square meters—that portion being part of a larger parcel covered by a transfer certificate of title in the plaintiff's name.
The plaintiff alleged that Fernando Castro unlawfully took possession without consent, prompting a demand for eviction and monthly damages (initially claimed at P30.00, later reduced to P10.00 for the period starting from May 1953 until restoration).

On August 1959, Judge Nicasio Yatco rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-4108.
The judgment became final, and on October 9, 1959, a writ of execution was issued, followed by an enforcement order for the demolition of the house on the disputed land.
On February 22, 1960, spouses Felipe Nacorda and Luz Nacorda filed a petition in the same case, asserting their ownership of the land and house, claiming that they acquired the property through successive transfers from Agustin de Torres.
They contended that Fernando Castro was merely a tenant, and that the demolition and execution actions were improperly directed against them.
Judge Yatco denied the petition on the grounds presented.

On March 12, 1960, following the denial in Civil Case No. Q-4108, the Nacordas initiated a separate action (Civil Case No. 5053 in the branch under Judge Hermogenes Caluag) seeking:

A declaration of their ownership of the properties.
A writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the execution and demolition order issued in the prior case.

On February 10, 1962, Judge Yatco issued an order in Civil Case No. Q-4108, giving Fernando Castro 30 days (expiring March 12, 1962) to vacate the land and demolish the house.

The Nacordas then filed an original petition for injunction with the Supreme Court:

They sought a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the execution and demolition order.
Their contention was that the property, including the house, belonged to them, not to Castro.

On March 19, 1962, Fernando Castro filed a manifestation noting that he had removed and demolished his house voluntarily in compliance with the district order.
Despite Castro’s manifestation, on March 21, 1962, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-4108 moved for the sheriff to enforce the demolition of the house, which was still found padlocked.
The court granted the motion on March 27, 1962, leading to the execution of the demolition order on March 29, 1962.
In response, the Nacordas filed a Supplementary Petition for Mandatory Injunction, arguing that:

The house demolished belonged to them.
They sought an order directing J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. to return possession of the land.
They requested that the demolished house be reconstructed on the same site and restored to its original form and size.

Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a proper remedy to stop the enforcement of a final judgment.
Whether injunction can be effectively used to prevent the execution of a judgment that has already become final.

Whether the mere claim of ownership by the Nacordas—asserting that they are the true owners of the property—is sufficient to justify their interference with the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. Q-4108.
The distinction between the issues of possession addressed in the earlier case and the issue of ownership being raised in the supplementary petition.

Whether the court should interfere with the enforcement of a judgment in an action where the ownership controversy is not actively litigated.
Whether the proper remedy for the Nacordas is to pursue a separate legal action for the vindication of their ownership rights.