G.R. No. L-29593 January 30, 1970
JUAN YSASI, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Bacolod City, Branch V), MARIA ALDECOA DE YSASI and JON YSASI, respondents.

FACTS

This is the third time the case is before the Supreme Court. In its June 25, 1968 decision, the Court directed respondent Judge to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering private respondents Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi and Jon Ysasi to turn over to petitioner Juan Ysasi the possession and control of Hacienda Manucao-A, along with all agricultural machinery, implements, work animals, other properties used in its operation, and its records, papers, documents, and books of accounts, upon petitioner’s filing of a P50,000 bond. Accordingly, on August 5, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ. However, upon service on August 6, 1968, Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi did not comply, citing her son Jon Ysasi’s absence. On August 10, 1968, respondent Judge dissolved the writ upon private respondents’ filing of a P60,000 counterbond. Petitioner challenged this order, and on September 20, 1968, the Supreme Court restrained respondent Judge from approving or enforcing the counterbond. On December 16, 1968, the Court set aside the August 10, 1968 order, directed private respondents to comply with the preliminary mandatory injunction, declared them in contempt, and fined them P1,000 each.
On December 23, 1968, respondent Judge ordered the provincial sheriff to execute the December 16, 1968 resolution. Despite inventory and attempts at turnover, private respondents failed to fully comply. A special sheriff was appointed, and his January 8, 1969 return indicated private respondents refused to surrender several items. By February 3 and 10, 1969, most items were turned over, except: a jeep (Plate No. J-11280), an airplane (Cessna 140 PIC-461), books of accounts for 1964-1965, and books for 1966-1968. Petitioner filed a motion on January 16, 1969, seeking another contempt citation against private respondents for this partial compliance and continued refusal.

ISSUE

Whether private respondents Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi and Jon Ysasi should be held in contempt of court for their delay in turning over some properties of Hacienda Manucao-A and their failure or refusal to surrender the remaining properties, despite the Supreme Court’s directive.

RULING

Yes, private respondents are guilty of contempt of court.
The Court rejected their excuses for non-compliance. Regarding the delayed turnover of items such as an automobile, typewriter, calculator, office desk, projector, and intercom telephones, Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi’s claim of honest belief that these were conjugal properties she had a right to use was unsatisfactory. She was aware that the issue of conjugal properties was central to the suit and that the Court had ruled petitioner, as administrator of conjugal assets, was entitled to possession. Her reference to a “Convenio de Arreglo y Venta” was also unavailing, as petitioner had challenged its validity. The claim that the hacienda had other sufficient equipment was not a legitimate excuse, as necessity was for the administrator to decide.
As to the books of accounts for 1962-1963 and 1963-1964, private respondents gave conflicting excuses—first that they were with their lawyers in Manila, then that they were with their accountant who demanded payment of fees—and only surrendered them on February 3, 1969. This delay was contumacious.
For the jeep and airplane, private respondents’ claim of ownership by Jon Ysasi did not justify refusal, as the Court’s order was for turnover of possession, not adjudication of ownership. The airplane had allegedly been exchanged, but this did not excuse compliance.
For the 1964-1965 books, private respondents’ claim that they were lost during a flood was deemed a “flimsy excuse,” as they could have reconstructed them. For the 1966-1968 books, the claim that their accountant retained them due to unpaid fees was unacceptable; private respondents had a duty to secure and surrender them.
The Court found private respondents guilty of contempt for their willful disobedience and sentenced them to pay an additional fine of P1,000 each within ten days. They were also ordered to deliver the 1966-1968 books of accounts to petitioner within ten days, with a warning of arrest and confinement until compliance upon failure.