G.R. No. L-7830 April 30, 1955
JOSE MANZA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On September 9, 1950, Quirina Rios and Benito Uy filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 5130) against Juan Manza, brother of the petitioner Jose Manza, to recover a parcel of land. In his answer, Juan Manza denied possession of the specific land claimed but alleged possession of a differently described property. On March 4, 1952, both parties requested a postponement until March 18 to reach a settlement, agreeing that if no settlement was reached, judgment would be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs as prayed for in their complaint, with damages reduced to P350. On March 18, the respondent Judge rendered judgment declaring the plaintiffs exclusive owners of the land described in the complaint and ordering defendant Juan Manza to vacate and pay P350 plus costs. On April 9, 1952, Jose Manza filed a motion to intervene, attaching a corresponding complaint alleging he had been the owner of the land since 1934. This motion for intervention was denied. On December 8, 1952, the plaintiffs filed a motion to require Juan Manza and Jose Manza to appear and explain why they should not be punished for contempt. The court ordered their appearance on December 22. In his answer, Jose Manza alleged he was not a party to Case No. 5130; the decision therein did not bind him; he was the owner of the land by inheritance and in actual possession; the land was declared in his name under Tax Declaration No. 2120 since 1938 and mortgaged to the agency of the Banco Nacional in Lucena since 1933 for P400. In its order of May 5, 1954, the Judge ordered the sheriff to execute the writ of possession against anyone in possession of the land and deliver it to the plaintiffs, without prejudice to any action Jose Manza might file against the plaintiffs, and absolved Juan and Jose Manza from the contempt charge.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the sheriff, through the order of May 5, 1954, to eject Jose Manza from the land he claims to own.

RULING

Yes. The respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The ejectment of Jose Manza from the land constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law. His motion to intervene, based on his claim of ownership since 1934, was denied, yet he was subsequently deprived of possession and ownership through the sheriff’s execution. If Juan Manza were the owner and Jose Manza merely a tenant, a judgment against Juan would affect Jose because his right derives from Juan. However, Jose claims to be the owner of the land (or at least claims ownership) and that Juan is his tenant-sharer (aparcero); therefore, Jose is not a privy of Juan. The judgment against Juan does not prejudice Jose. The order of May 5, 1954, is declared null and void insofar as it authorizes the sheriff of Quezon to eject Jose Manza from the land occupied by him. Quirina Rios and Benito Uy shall pay the costs.