A.M. No. CA-01-32 - Heirs of Reyes vs. Demetria

MAGIN VELEZ AND LUCY VELEZ, PETITIONERS instituted Civil Case No. 7950 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for rescission of a deed of absolute sale of a house and lot with assumption of mortgage executed January 15, 1962.
The defendants included ULDARICO BACAY, the Social Security System, and the Home Financing Commission.
Judgment dated February 25, 1965 declared the sale resolved and rescinded, ordered ULDARICO BACAY to make certain money payments, and ordered restoration of possession of the property to MAGIN VELEZ AND LUCY VELEZ, PETITIONERS.
The cross-claims of the Social Security System and the Home Financing Commission against ULDARICO BACAY were dismissed.

ULDARICO BACAY received a copy of the February 25, 1965 decision on March 2, 1965.
On March 31, 1965 ULDARICO BACAY filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal; consideration was, upon his request, set for April 15, 1965.
On April 26, 1965 an appeal bond was filed by ULDARICO BACAY.
On May 12, 1965 the trial court, upon motion of the plaintiffs, disapproved the record on appeal because the appeal bond had been filed out of time.
ULDARICO BACAY moved for reconsideration of the May 12 order but the motion was denied.
On May 18, 1965, upon motion of the plaintiffs, the trial court ordered execution of its February 25 judgment.
The corresponding writ of execution was issued on May 25, 1965.

On May 25, 1965 ULDARICO BACAY moved to quash the writ of execution; the plaintiffs moved to cite him for contempt.
On June 4, 1965 the trial court denied the motion to quash and ordered ULDARICO BACAY to vacate the house and deliver possession to the plaintiffs through the sheriff within five days under pain of contempt, arrest, and confinement until compliance.
On June 5, 1965 ULDARICO BACAY filed a notice of appeal to the COURT OF APPEALS from the June 4 order and requested the trial court to fix a bond for stay of execution.

On June 1, 1965 ULDARICO BACAY had filed a petition for relief from the May 12 order denying his appeal.
On June 8, 1965 ULDARICO BACAY filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the COURT OF APPEALS against the Velez spouses, Hon. Modesto R. Ramolete (presiding judge), and the sheriff of the City of Cebu, praying that the June 4 order be set aside, that execution be stayed, that respondents be enjoined from disturbing petitioner's possession, and that the trial court be ordered to act on the petition for relief.
The petition for relief in the trial court was denied in an order dated June 7, 1965, but ULDARICO BACAY had not been notified of that denial when he filed the petition in the COURT OF APPEALS.

Implementation of writs and conflicting actions on June 9 and subsequent events

On June 9, 1965 the City sheriff implemented the writ of execution and delivered the property to MAGIN VELEZ AND LUCY VELEZ, PETITIONERS at 1:45 P.M.
Also on June 9, 1965 the COURT OF APPEALS gave due course to ULDARICO BACAY's petition and issued a writ ex parte of preliminary injunction; Judge Ramolete and the sheriff were notified that evening at 9:10 P.M. and 9:30 P.M., respectively.
The plaintiffs offered to post a counterbond to lift the writ of preliminary injunction, but the offer was denied on June 14, 1965.
On June 23, 1965 the COURT OF APPEALS issued an order directing provincial sheriff VICENTE MIRANDA to "maintain petitioner's possession of the premises, ousting respondents therefrom," and requiring the City sheriff and the Velez spouses to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt.
On June 25, 1965 VICENTE MIRANDA filed a return of service stating that the writ of preliminary injunction could not be enforced because the Velez spouses refused to vacate and had locked all doors.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the COURT OF APPEALS acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in giving due course to ULDARICO BACAY's petition for certiorari and prohibition, in view of the claimed finality of the trial-court decision and the alleged availability of adequate remedies at law, namely, stay of execution under Section 2 of Rule 39 and appeal from the order denying the petition for relief.

Whether Justice Edmundo S. Piccio should have been disqualified and whether the COURT OF APPEALS erred in failing to resolve the motion to disqualify before taking further action in the case.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest