Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26115)
Facts:
Carlos Sandico, Sr., and Teopisto P. Timbol v. The Honorable Minerva R. Inocencio Piguing and Desiderio Paras, G.R. No. L-26115, November 29, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Castro, J., writing for the Court.On April 16, 1960 the spouses Carlos Sandico and Enrica Timbol, and Teopisto P. Timbol, as administrator of the estate of the late Sixta Paras, obtained judgment in Civil Case No. 1554 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga in an action for easement and damages against Desiderio Paras. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed and modified the judgment (CA-G.R. 28414-R, November 18, 1963), ordering the defendant to recognize the easement and to pay P5,000 actual damages, P500 exemplary damages and P500 attorney’s fees.
Upon remand, the petitioners sought enforcement. The CFI issued a writ of execution on July 22, 1964, served on the respondent August 22, 1964. Meanwhile the parties reached an agreement reducing the monetary part from P6,000 to P4,000; respondent paid P3,000 on August 5, 1964 and P1,000 on August 31, 1964. The August 31 receipt, signed by petitioners’ counsel and respondent, stated the P1,000 was received “in full satisfaction of the money judgment” and recited that the respondent would comply “immediately” with the portion ordering reconstruction of the irrigation canal.
After the sheriff returned the writ unsatisfied (February 12, 1965), petitioners filed a motion to declare respondent in contempt (March 3, 1965) for failing to reconstruct and reopen the canal. The respondent asserted he had dug a partial canal and granted petitioners permission to do reconstruction themselves. The respondent judge (Judge Piguing) denied the contempt motion (September 8, 1965) reasoning the dispositive portion only ordered recognition of the easement and did not expressly command reconstruction. Petitioners obtained an alias writ (September 25, 1965); respondent moved to set it aside (November 3, 1965). The judge suspended execution (November 11, 1965) and later recalled and quashed the alias writ (February 3, 1966), holding the parties’ agreement had “novated” the money judgment and that nothing monetary remained to be executed. Reconsideration was denied (March 30, 1966).
The pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge correctly construe the Court of Appeals’ judgment as not requiring the respondent to reconstruct and reopen the irrigation canal, and thereby properly deny the petitioners’ motion to declare the respondent in contempt of court?
- Did the respondent’s payment of P4,000 extinguish the money judgment so as to justify the respondent judge’s recall and quashal...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)