GR L 21851; (January, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-21851 and L-21924-26; January 31, 1966
MARCOS ESCOBAR, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Marcos Escobar and his wife obtained a final and executory judgment on April 24, 1961, from the Municipal Court of Cebu City against their tenants (respondents Inocencia Damalerio Vda. de Co, Chua Kaw, Prudencio Bulahan, and Ong Giok). The judgment allowed the tenants to continue occupying the premises for two years from the date of finality under certain conditions. After the two-year period expired, the Escobar spouses demanded restitution and, upon the tenants’ failure to comply, secured a writ of possession from the municipal court on June 21, 1963. Tenant Prudencio Bulahan then filed an action before the Court of First Instance of Cebu (respondent court), alleging that two months prior to the expiration of the original lease, a new and distinct contract of lease under the same terms was concluded with the Escobar spouses, and that rentals for June 1963 were accepted. Bulahan, joined by the other three tenants, prayed for a declaration of the new contract’s validity and for a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the execution. The respondent court issued the preliminary injunction on August 6, 1963, upon Bulahan’s filing of a bond. The Escobar spouses moved to dissolve the injunction, denying the existence of a new contract. The respondent court deferred resolution on the motion, opting to first receive evidence on the merits. Before the scheduled hearing could proceed, the Escobar spouses filed the present petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion and seeking to restrain the trial.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for prohibition filed by the Escobar spouses is premature, given that the factual issue of the existence of a new contract of lease—which is the core of the case before the respondent court—has not yet been resolved through the presentation of evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling it was improvidently filed and premature. The Court held that the central issue—the truthfulness of Bulahan’s claim regarding a new contract of lease—is a factual matter that must first be determined by the respondent court after receiving the necessary evidence. The Supreme Court found that the respondent court acted within its discretion in deferring the resolution of the motion to dissolve the injunction until after hearing the evidence on the merits. Consequently, the case was remanded to the respondent court for continuation of the hearing. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.