G.R. No. L-11539; May 19, 1958
ARING BAGOBA, PEDRO DURANO, LOPEZ SUGA, BUAT ONGIO, JAIME ANGA and MAURA ANGA, petitioners, vs. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, and JOSE (NAKAMURA) ORIGINAL, represented by his Attorney-in Fact, BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Obot, a non-Christian, died in 1928, leaving two parcels of land: Lot No. 158 and Lot No. 162 in Davao. She had a brother, Lopez Suga, and two sisters, Aring Bagoba and Antap Bagoba. Antap predeceased Obot, leaving children Buat Ongio, Jaime Anga, and Maura Anga. Obot cohabited without marriage with Hasuhiro Nakamura, a Japanese subject, and their only child, Jose (Nakamura) Original, was born on March 30, 1924. Upon Obot’s death, Hasuhiro Nakamura acted as guardian of Jose and administered the properties until his own death in 1945. After liberation, petitioners (Aring, her brother Lopez Suga, and their nephews and niece) took possession of the lots. In 1946, Aring and Lopez Suga executed affidavits falsely stating Obot died without issue, leading to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 193 for Lot No. 158 in Aring’s name. In 1950, they executed an extrajudicial partition for Lot No. 162. Jose Original, who was in Japan after being taken by the U.S. Army as an interpreter, executed a general power of attorney in 1951 in favor of Brigido R. Valencia, who filed an action to recover the two lots and damages. After trial, respondent Judge Enrique A. Fernandez rendered a decision on August 30, 1956, ordering petitioners to deliver the lots to Jose. The trial court found petitioners knew Jose was Obot’s son and heir, made false representations, and were possessors in bad faith. Respondent Judge granted Jose’s motion for immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal, finding the appeal was for delay and petitioners had tacitly admitted the land belonged to Jose but claimed good faith improvements. Petitioners also filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, challenging the order of execution and an order requiring them to amend their record on appeal to include certain pleadings and documents they deemed unnecessary.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal.
2. Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in requiring petitioners to amend their record on appeal to include certain pleadings and documents.

RULING

1. On the order of immediate execution: The Supreme Court held that the order for issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment pending appeal was properly and correctly issued. The trial court found petitioners were possessors in bad faith, knew the lots belonged to Jose, made false affidavits, and their appeal was merely for purposes of delay. Petitioners had even tacitly admitted during hearings that the land belonged to plaintiff. The petition to annul the order of execution was denied.
2. On the amendment of the record on appeal: The Supreme Court agreed with petitioners that the inclusion of certain pleadings and documents, such as original pleadings later amended and pleadings involving the Philippine National Bank (which had lost interest after its encumbrance was liquidated), was unnecessary. The Court directed the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine and include in the record on appeal only those pleadings and documents strictly necessary for the appellate court’s consideration, to avoid unnecessary expense.
The writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved. No costs.