Title
Yap vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 68464
Decision Date
Mar 22, 1993
Legal battle ensues over jurisdiction and writ validity after a man with a writ of possession is arrested for theft by the alleged landowner.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 68464)

Facts:

  • Petitioners: Francisco D. Yap and Carlito H. Vailoces.
  • Respondents: Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court, Judge Aurelio Lomeda, and Zosimo Dy, Sr.
  • On July 6, 1983, Yap purchased three parcels of land from Dumaguete Rural Bank, Inc. via a Deed of Sale with Agreement to Mortgage.
  • The parcels were identified as Lots 3, 6, and 1 under TCT Nos. T-20301, T-14781, and T-14777, located in Ayungon, Negros Oriental.
  • The Bank warranted ownership of the properties sold to Yap.
  • Yap obtained a Writ of Possession from the Regional Trial Court on September 2, 1983, allowing him to take physical possession.
  • Yap voluntarily posted a bond of P8,000.00, which was approved by the court.
  • On September 5, 1983, Yap served the Writ of Possession and harvested coconuts from the parcels.
  • On September 22, 1983, Zosimo Dy, Sr. filed a case for qualified theft against Yap, Vailoces, Deputy Sheriff Janiola, and coconut gatherers.
  • Dy claimed ownership of the parcels, asserting the sale occurred without the Bank's knowledge or consent.
  • Judge Lomeda denied Yap and Vailoces's Motion to Quash on December 13, 1983, finding probable cause and ordering their arrest.
  • Yap and Vailoces were arrested on January 3, 1984, and refused to post bail, believing their detention was unlawful.
  • They filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and/or Certiorari and Prohibition, which the Regional Trial Court granted on January 5, 1984, dismissing the case.
  • Dy appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which reversed the Regional Trial Court's ruling on July 31, 1984.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari does not lie to annul the municipal judge's order finding probable cause and issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
  • The Court affirmed that the municipal judge had the a...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The issuance of a warrant of arrest is contingent upon the municipal judge's finding of probable cause based on evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.
  • Municipal trial courts have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations for crimes, even if cognizable by regional trial courts, within their territ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.