Case Summary (G.R. No. 50618)
Background and Procedural History
After the unlawful detainer judgment in 1969, which mandated the Jamoras and their associates to vacate the premises, the local sheriff enforced the judgment, restoring possession to the Facinals. However, the private respondents, including Ramon Dasal and Domingo Dasal, who claimed to be lessees under the Jamoras, illegally reentered the property. This prompted contempt proceedings against them, leading to their conviction for indirect contempt in 1971, wherein fines and conditional imprisonment were imposed.
Subsequent Developments
The contempt ruling was not adhered to, and further incidents occurred, including a criminal case against Leopoldo Facinal that was later dismissed. Despite numerous legal actions, including issuing an alias writ of execution for possession in 1974, the private respondents continued their defiance, leading to another contempt proceeding initiated by the petitioners in 1974.
Initial Denial of Probation
In a 1978 decision, the trial court denied the respondents' application for probation, primarily because they had not vacated the property as required by the court's prior decision. This denial noted that granting probation under the circumstances would contradict the spirit of rehabilitation intended by probation laws.
Change of Circumstances and Granting of Probation
In a surprising turn, the trial court reversed its decision on September 15, 1978, granting probation to the Dasals. The trial court cited the ambiguous nature of possession and suggested that the ongoing disputes over possession should be handled in separate contempt proceedings. This change was met with a motion for reconsideration by the Facinals, which the trial court later denied.
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
The Facinals subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul the orders allowing probation to the private respondents, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. They argued that the respondents' ongoing possession of the property constituted a continuous defiant act against the court's decisions, which should disqualify them from receiving probation.
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the probation application in light of the purpose of probation as outlined in Presidential Decree No. 968, which emphasizes rehabilitation and reformation. Given the repeated acts of defiance by the private respondents, the court determined that they did not exhibit the necessary repentance or capability for rehabilitation that justified the granting of probation.
Determination of Indirect Contempt
Recognizing the private respondents' violations of court orders and t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 50618)
Case Citation
- Case Reference: 288 Phil. 98
- Division: Second Division
- G.R. No.: 50618
- Date: September 02, 1992
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Leopoldo Facinal and Sancha O. Facinal
- Respondents: Honorable Judge Agapito I. Cruz, Ramon Dasal, and Domingo Dasal
Nature of the Case
- Type of Petition: Petition for certiorari and mandamus
- Objective: To annul and set aside the orders dated September 15, 1978; November 6, 1978; December 14, 1978; and February 5, 1979, related to the granting of probation to private respondents.
Background Facts
- Petitioners are the owners of a fishpond in Sapian, Capiz, covering 103 hectares, under Tax Declaration No. 2075.
- In 1957, a 20-hectare portion was leased to Clodualdo Jamora and Luciana Orbion for ten years, expiring December 31, 1966.
- Post-lease expiration, Jamora and Isagani Jamora (who acquired Orbion's leasehold rights) refused to vacate, prompting petitioners to file an unlawful detainer complaint on January 15, 1968.
- The Municipal Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on September 30, 1969, ordering the defendants to vacate and pay damages.
Legal Proceedings
- A writ of execution was issued on October 17, 1969, allowing the sheriff to evict the Jamoras, leading to petitioners regaining possession.
- Private respondents, joined by others, re-entered the property in January 1970, leading to a series of contempt proceedings against them.
- On September 10, 1971, a court found the private respondents guilty of indirect contempt for their refusal to comply with the court order to vacate.