Title
Rom vs. Cobadora
Case
G.R. No. L-24764
Decision Date
Jul 17, 1969
Land dispute: Rom wins ownership in quieting of title case; Cobadora’s contempt conviction reversed as forcible entry ruling didn’t bar ownership claim.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24764)

Facts:

Eufrosino Rom v. Clemente Cobadora, G.R. No. L-24764, July 17, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.

The dispute concerned possession and ownership of a ten-hectare parcel (Lot 2 in the survey plan). On August 31, 1954, Clemente Cobadora (appellant) filed a forcible entry complaint before the Justice of the Peace, alleging that Eufrosino Rom (appellee) had ousted him from the northern portion of the land and gathered coconuts. The Justice of the Peace initially upheld Rom’s right of possession; on appeal the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte, in Civil Case No. 2116, on October 21, 1957, adjudicated possession to Cobadora and ordered return of the property and payment for products; the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in CA-G.R. No. 22736-R (March 4, 1960). That judgment was executed, restoring Cobadora to possession and providing him the corresponding payment.

While the forcible-entry litigation was pending on appeal, Rom on November 22, 1957 filed CFI Civil Case No. 431 to quiet title to the same parcel. After trial the CFI declared Rom owner, ordered restoration of the land to him, and awarded attorney’s fees (P1,000) and actual damages (P2,000). The Court of Appeals affirmed in CA-G.R. No. 31113-R; Cobadora’s petition for certiorari to this Court (G.R. L-21934) was dismissed.

Following the finality of the quieting-title judgment, the trial court issued a writ of execution. The writ was issued April 2, 1964, registered April 7, 1964; the deputy sheriff served a copy on Cobadora on April 5, 1964 (who refused to sign), and the sheriff’s return dated June 3, 1964 stated that on May 5, 1964 the sheriff placed Rom in possession in the presence of boundary owners, the parties, and municipal police. Rom then charged Cobadora with contempt for disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ of execution under Rule 71, sec. 3(b) of the Rules of Court. The l...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was Cobadora’s conviction for contempt under Rule 71, section 3(b) for disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ of execution proper?
  • Did the earlier forcible-entry judgment in Cobadora’s favor operate as res judicata to nullify the later quieting-title judgm...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.