GR L 14428; (July, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14428; July 26, 1960
AGATON SEGARRA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELIX MARONILLA, JR., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Albay finding plaintiff Agaton Segarra guilty of contempt of court. The contempt charge arose from a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 301). On July 1, 1948, the lower court rendered a decision based on a commissioner’s report and croquis. The parties made the following manifestations on record: (1) Defendant Felix Maronilla, Jr. claimed possession of the land marked as “Portion A” in the croquis; (2) Plaintiff Agaton Segarra disclaimed any interest in “Portion A” and asserted that the land in question was the area marked as “Portion B” on the eastern side of the Quiperete River. The court’s judgment declared plaintiff Segarra the rightful possessor of “Portion B” and ordered its immediate delivery to him, without any pronouncement regarding “Portion A” or costs. Plaintiff later filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, upon defendant’s motion, a writ of execution was issued. Over plaintiff’s objections, the sheriff delivered possession of “Portion A” (not “Portion B”) to the defendant. When plaintiff, through his tenants, re-entered “Portion A,” defendant filed a motion to cite plaintiff for contempt. The lower court found plaintiff guilty of contempt for disobeying the writ of execution and ordered his detention until compliance.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Agaton Segarra, was rightly held in contempt of court for re-entering “Portion A” after its delivery to the defendant via a writ of execution.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the contempt order and dismissed the charge. The Court held that the writ of execution dated November 23, 1953, which directed the delivery of “Portion A” to the defendant, was invalid because it was not in harmony with the judgment sought to be enforced. The dispositive part of the July 1, 1948, decision only awarded possession of “Portion B” to the plaintiff and made no adjudication whatsoever regarding “Portion A.” The rule is that only the dispositive part of a decision is subject to execution; whatever is stated in the body of the decision serves only as a guide to the ratio decidendi but is not controlling for execution purposes. Since the writ of execution was issued without authority (as it enforced a delivery not decreed in the judgment), resistance to it could not be punished as contempt. A lawful writ or order is a prerequisite for a contempt charge.