Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > December 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16035 December 31, 1960 - THERESE VILLANUEVA v. PANTALEON A. PELAYO

110 Phil 602:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-16035. December 31, 1960.]

THERESE VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. THE HON. PANTALEON A. PELAYO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and PEDRO CASIPE, Respondents.

Sulpicio Palma and Marvin J. Mirasol for Petitioner.

Jose M. Celo for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


DEFAULT JUDGMENT; WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT; LIFTING OF JUDGMENT, EFFECT OF. — A writ of execution issued on a default judgment becomes invalidated upon the lifting of the judgment. That the execution has been carried out does not deprive the court of the power to direct the return of what had been prematurely or unduly received.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Sued for debt and unpaid rentals, Pedro Casipe failed to make answer. Wherefore, he was defaulted by the Iloilo court of first instance, which, after receiving the evidence of plaintiff Therese Villanueva, sentenced him on November 29, 1958, to pay her P4,697.80 with legal interest, plus P500.00 as attorney’s fees, plus costs.

On December 26, 1958, Casipe’s counsel filed a verified petition to set aside the default and the adverse judgment, alleging that the summons had not been validly served at his residence, and that he came to know of the complaint against him only when a writ of garnishment and execution had been issued. Casipe further alleged he had a good defense, because the amount of P4,697.80 claimed by plaintiff was not due, but only the total sum of P75.00 representing three monthly installments. Over the opposition of plaintiff, the court on March 21, 1959, revoked its default order and judgment, required defendant to answer in five days after notice, and directed the Clerk of Court to set the case for trial in due course.

On March 30, 1959, Casipe answered and admitted a debt of about P87.50 for back accounts and unpaid rentals — not P4,697.80 as claimed by the plaintiff. And on May 5, 1959, he submitted a motion to lift execution asserting that on December 2, 1958, an order of execution had been issued on the default judgment against him; that pursuant thereto, the Sheriff had garnished and levied on the proceeds of some fire insurance policies payable to him; that inasmuch as said default judgment had been set aside, it was just and proper to quash the execution. It appearing later that pursuant to the execution, plaintiff had received from the Sheriff the amount of P5,327.32 from the proceeds of insurance policies of defendant which the Sheriff had garnished, defendant prayed on May 26, 1959, that said plaintiff be ordered to return the money to him.

The plaintiff did not object, (apparently because it had not received copy of these petitions on time). So the court on May 26, 1959, annulled the writ of execution and required plaintiff to return to defendant the money she had received from the Sheriff (P5,327.32). Later plaintiff explained her silence and objected to the annulment for two reasons: (a) the execution had been levied in compliance with the decision of the court; and (b) plaintiff had spent the money "in the honest belief that the same is due her by virtue of the court’s orders." On July 20, 1959, the court overruled plaintiff’s objection saying "a person who received money which is not due him has the obligation to return it to the one who is entitled to it. No one shall enrich himself at the expense of another." Then it reiterated the order requiring plaintiff "to deliver to defendant the amount of P5,327.32" she had received from the Sheriff.

Wherefore, plaintiff resorted to this Court with a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. She charged the respondent judge with abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in revoking the default and the judgment, and in requiring the return of the money. She argued the judgment had already been executed, and was no longer subject to the control of the court below.

Pursuant to her request, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued here, even as respondents were summoned to explain.

Respondent’s subsequent answer fully disclosed the circumstances under which the judge had lifted the order of default. We are now convinced there was no such abuse of discretion or want of jurisdiction. On the contrary, the petition for relief having been filed within thirty days, the interests of justice demanded the grant of an opportunity to the defense, it appearing from the document (Appendix 1) on which plaintiff’s case rested, that the amount of indebtedness acknowledged by defendant, was payable by installments of P25.00 every month, beginning February 1958, so that on November 1958, when the action began, defendant owed at most about P250.00. (Defendant asserts his debt was only P87.50) By the way, said document contained no acceleration clause.

Probably due to defendant’s default, plaintiff secured execution on December 2, 1958, even though the judgment had been rendered only three days before. 1 As at that time, the possibility of defendant’s obtaining relief was not foreclosed 2 , plaintiff obviously calculated defendant would never get it. So, the writ was either premature, or at least precarious, i.e., subject to a resolutory contingency. On the other hand, it might have been issued as "execution pending appeal" under Rule 39, section 2.

Now then, if issued under the first assumption, the subsequent lifting of the default and judgment thereon, invalidated the execution, because based on a voided judgment. The Court had authority to rectify the error or miscalculation. 3 If under the second, the Rule itself provides for measures to restore the status quo ante (see sec. 5). 4 That the execution has been carried out does not paralyze the court’s power to direct the return of what had been prematurely or unduly received. 5

In the light of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the lower court’s orders. Petition dismissed, with costs. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J. B. L., J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Defendant had no right to appeal. But Sec. 1, Rule 39 might mean; execution after thirty days. No opinion is now expressed on this point.

2. Lim Toco v. Go Fay, 80 Phil., 166.

3. Dimayuga v. Raymundo, 76 Phil., 143; 42 Off. Gaz., 2121; Garcia v. Muñoz, 103 Phil., 628; Off. Gaz., [33] 7727.

4. Molina v. Somes, 24 Phil., 49; Naredo v. Yatco, 80 Phil., 220.

5. See Mortera v. West of Scotland, 36 Phil., 994.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



December-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-14762 December 20, 1960 - UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE TRENES v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR, CO.

    110 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-13007 December 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE CUNANAN

    110 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-16283 December 27, 1960 - NEW ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10121 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BERGANIO

    110 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

    110 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-11037 December 29, 1960 - EDGARDO CARIAGA v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY.

    110 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-11179 December 29, 1960 - BURGOS T. SAYOC v. ELLEN CHEN

    110 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-11665 December 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE MORALES v. CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF CAVITE

    110 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-12087 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CAIMBRE

    110 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-12450 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO BOLIVAR

    110 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. L-12819 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO GUARNES

    110 Phil 379

  • G.R. Nos. L-12860-61 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGMEDIO SANTIAGO

    110 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-13018 December 29, 1960 - ADELA ROSARIO v. MARIA S. F. ROSARIO

    110 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-13075 December 29, 1960 - CO CHIN LENG v. EUGENIO MINTU

    110 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-13083 December 29, 1960 - MANUEL R. OLAÑO v. MANUEL BERNARDO

    110 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13292 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENCESLAO PAGULAYAN

    110 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-13308 December 29, 1960 - MANUEL PANGAN v. EVENING NEWS PUBLISHING CO.

    110 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-13401 December 29, 1960 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-13695 December 29, 1960 - RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

    110 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-13746 December 29, 1960 - ISIDRO BOFIL v. CATALINO P. CASIDSID

    110 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-14219 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO G. SISON v. FELICIANO MAZA

    110 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-14245 December 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD ABIJUELA v. HOSPICIA DOLOSA

    110 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-14377 December 29, 1960 - EAST PACIFIC MERCHANDISING CORP. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    110 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-14623 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKANS ASPALIN

    110 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-14858 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO S. GONZAGA v. AUGUSTO CE DAVID

    110 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14985 December 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO U. BUENASEDA v. BOWEN & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-15100 December 29, 1960 - IN RE: VICENTE TIU NAVARRO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    110 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-15118 December 29, 1960 - ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. L-15140 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN DEROSARIO

    110 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-15154 December 29, 1960 - GIL VILLANUEVA v. FILOMENO GIRGED

    110 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15155 December 29, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. EXEQUIEL FLORO

    110 Phil 482

  • G.R. Nos. L-15167-68 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALIO PANCHO

    110 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-15182 December 29, 1960 - SANTIAGA BLANCO v. FRUCTUOSA ESQUIERDO

    110 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-15193 December 29, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    110 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15595 December 29, 1960 - MARTIN CAÑADA v. CANDIDO RUBI

    110 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15654 December 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-15753 December 29, 1960 - JUANA REYES VDA. DE AREJOLA v. CAMARINES SUR REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL

    110 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-15800 December 29, 1960 - C. K. VASWANI v. P. TARACHAND BROS.

    110 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-15813 December 29, 1960 - GERMAN DE ORTUBE v. JUSTINIANO T. ASUNCION

    110 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. L-15978 December 29, 1960 - DAVAO GULF LUMBER CORP. v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    110 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-16153 December 29, 1960 - ESTRELLA E. SERRANO v. ANDRES REYES

    110 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. L-16285 December 29, 1960 - JOSE SETON v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    110 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-17512 December 29, 1960 - CLARO IBASCO v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

    110 Phil 553

  • G.R. Nos. L-13012 & L-14876 December 31, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO

    110 Phil 558

  • G.R. Nos. L-13983-85 December 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERLITO SOYANG

    110 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-14921 December 31, 1960 - DOLORES B. GUICO v. PABLO G. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 584

  • G.R. Nos. L-15024-25 December 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SACAYANAN

    110 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-15560 December 31, 1960 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY WORKERS UNION v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-16035 December 31, 1960 - THERESE VILLANUEVA v. PANTALEON A. PELAYO

    110 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. L-16521 December 31, 1960 - PORFIRIO DIAZ v. EMIGDIO NIETES

    110 Phil 606