G.R. No. L-1319; July 31, 1947
JUANA CANAFE, assisted by her husband, Raymundo Cedro, petitioner, vs. HERMOGENES CALUAG, Judge of First Instance of Albay, and CRISTETO SORIA, respondents.

FACTS

On October 19, 1943, petitioner Juana Canafe filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Albay against respondent Cristeto Soria to compel him to allow the redemption of a parcel of rice land and to recover an excess sum. Soria claimed the transaction was a sale with a right to repurchase, and the period had expired. On May 18, 1944, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Canafe had the right to repurchase the land for P280 and ordered Soria to deliver possession and execute a deed of resale. The clerk of court was ordered to deliver to Soria the P280 deposited by Canafe. On June 30, 1944, Soria was notified of the judgment. On July 25, 1944, he filed a notice of appeal. On July 28, 1944, Canafe moved for immediate execution. On August 9, 1944, the court approved the record on appeal and granted immediate execution. An alias writ of execution was issued after liberation, and Canafe was placed in possession. On October 5, 1946, Soria moved to annul the alias writ and to reconstitute the destroyed record, offering a supersedeas bond. Canafe objected, arguing the court lost jurisdiction after approving the record on appeal. On October 21, 1946, the court denied Soria’s motion. On October 23, 1946, Soria moved for reconsideration, asking for suspension of the writ and for Canafe to deposit P280 in Philippine currency to replace the lost Japanese war notes. On November 26, 1946, the court amended its October 21 order and directed Canafe to deposit P280 in Philippine currency within fifteen days. Canafe moved for reconsideration, which was denied on December 27, 1946. Canafe then filed this certiorari petition, contending the respondent court acted without jurisdiction in issuing the orders of November 26 and December 27, 1946, as it had lost jurisdiction after approving the record on appeal on August 9, 1944.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction when it issued the orders dated November 26, 1946 (directing the deposit of P280 in Philippine currency) and December 27, 1946 (denying reconsideration) after it had approved the record on appeal on August 9, 1944.

RULING

Yes, the respondent court acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, declaring the orders of November 26 and December 27, 1946, null and void. The Court held that after the trial court approved the record on appeal on August 9, 1944, it lost jurisdiction over the case, except for matters concerning the preservation of the parties’ rights not involved in the appeal under Section 9, Rule 41. The orders in question were not for such preservation; they amended the judgment by altering the terms of the deposit (from Japanese war notes to Philippine currency), a matter that could be and would likely be raised on appeal by Soria. Since Canafe could not appeal these orders (as only Soria appealed the main judgment), and the court lacked jurisdiction to issue them, certiorari was the proper remedy. Costs were taxed against respondent Cristeto Soria.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Perfecto dissented. He argued that if the lower court had jurisdiction to order immediate execution of the judgment (which was not disputed), it necessarily had the power to carry out that execution fully, even after approving the record on appeal. The judgment was bilateral: Canafe was entitled to possession of the land, and Soria was entitled to the repurchase price of P280. To execute the judgment only for Canafe’s benefit while denying Soria the price would be unjust and one-sided. The order for Canafe to deposit the P280 in Philippine currency was to ensure the complete execution of the judgment. He believed the petition should be denied.