Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17712)
Facts:
Basilio Unsay and Antonia Manalo v. Hon. Cecilia Muñoz‑Palma, G.R. No. L‑17712, May 31, 1965, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Basilio Unsay and Antonia Manalo were among several defendants in Civil Case No. 2798 before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, an action filed by Feliza (Felisa) Diaz and David Liwanag to collect a sum of money and to enforce a claimed right of usufruct over parcels of land in Pasig and Cainta, Rizal. Other defendants named in the complaint included Marta Mendoza, Hilario Nonato and Asuncion Tuason. The defendants contested the complaint, asserting that the alleged usufruct was not annotated on the Torrens titles covering the land and that some defendants (including petitioners) were purchasers for value in good faith; they therefore contended petitioners’ titles were indefeasible.
After trial, the CFI rendered judgment ordering, among other relief, that the defendants deliver possession of the land to the plaintiffs for the duration of the latter’s right of usufruct. Only Marta Mendoza and Hilario Nonato appealed from that judgment; the other defendants, including petitioners Unsay and Manalo, did not appeal. Almost five months after the judgment had become final and executory as to them, petitioners filed (Jan. 14, 1960) a motion to dismiss the action on the ground the trial court had acted in excess and without jurisdiction because their Torrens titles were indefeasible; the trial court denied the motion and a reconsideration.
On March 8, 1960, the CFI issued a writ of execution as to petitioners, ordering their ejection from the parcels pending the usufruct. Petitioners moved to quash the writ (arguing the appeal by other defendants suspended finality as to all defendants) and to stay execution by offering to pay P30.00 monthly to plaintiffs, but the trial court denied these motions (Mar. 16, 1960). Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals seeking annulment of the CFI orders; the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as without merit.
Petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The case was thus before the Sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the action filed in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 2798) properly subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because petitioners claimed indefeasible Torrens title?
- Was it proper for execution (specifically, a writ directing delivery of possession for the usufruct) to issue against defendants who did not appeal while ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)