G.R. No. L-11977; April 29, 1959
LEONARDO AZARCON, MANUEL AZARCON and ESTEBAN ABOBO, petitioners, vs. VICTOR EUSEBIO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Victor Eusebio filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against petitioners Leonardo Azarcon, Manuel Azarcon, and Esteban Abobo, alleging he had acquired a 349-hectare parcel of land by lease from the Bureau of Lands (Lease Application No. V-79) and that petitioners occupied a portion of about six hectares. Petitioners answered, claiming Leonardo Azarcon had been in actual possession of a 24-hectare portion since 1941 under a homestead application (No. V-42995). The trial court declared petitioners in default, denied their motion to set it aside, and rendered a judgment by default ordering them to restore possession to Eusebio. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
While the appeal was pending, the trial court issued a writ of execution on October 3, 1955, served on petitioners on October 7, 1955. The Court of Appeals, upon petitioners’ motion, ordered the execution stayed upon their filing of a P1,000 supersedeas bond, which was to be approved by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. Petitioners filed and secured approval of the bond on November 21, 1955, but the Court of Appeals, not having been notified of this approval, set aside its order staying execution on December 2, 1955. The evidence showed that after receiving the writ of execution, petitioners entered the land to harvest palay they had planted, which was then pending harvest.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty of contempt of court for entering the disputed land and harvesting the palay after receiving the writ of execution, despite the subsequent (but later set aside) order from the Court of Appeals staying that execution.

RULING

No, petitioners are not guilty of contempt. The order of execution commanded petitioners to vacate the premises but did not expressly prohibit them from gathering the existing crop. Under Article 545 of the Civil Code, a possessor in good faith who is ordered to leave land has a right to a part of the net harvest for the period of possession. Petitioners’ act of harvesting was justified by law and not expressly forbidden by the court’s order. Furthermore, their action occurred after they had moved to stay execution and after the Court of Appeals had initially granted that stay, which may have led them to believe their entry was permissible. The subsequent order setting aside the stay was issued under the mistaken belief that no bond had been filed. The technical violation of the order to vacate by entering to harvest does not constitute a clear, open, and contumacious defiance of the court’s authority punishable as contempt. The order finding petitioners in contempt is set aside.