GR L 1444; (March, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1444; March 23, 1948
CONCEPCION P. CASTRO and ANDRES M. CASTRO, petitioners, vs. EMILIO PEÑA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, VALERIANO FUGOSO, City Mayor of Manila, EMILIA MATANGUIHAN, VENANCIO SEGISMUNDO, and L. PASICOLAN, Sheriff of City of Manila, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Concepcion P. Castro and Andres M. Castro filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 1318) against the City Mayor of Manila and others, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Mayor’s “decisions” cancelling the assignment of market stalls Nos. 347 and 348, Divisoria Market, to Concepcion P. Castro and adjudicating them to respondent Emilia Matanguihan. The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Emilio Peña, rendered judgment declaring Matanguihan the legal occupant and ordering Castro to vacate the stalls immediately. Matanguihan had been declared in default for failure to answer the complaint. Twenty-three days after judgment, upon the City Mayor’s motion, the trial court issued a writ of execution to enforce the vacation order. Petitioners challenge the issuance of the writ via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The writ of execution was issued before the expiration of the period to appeal and without the special order stating good reasons as required by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. While the judgment was in an action for injunction, and Section 4 of the same Rule provides that such a judgment “shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken,” the provision does not dispense with the requirement of a special order for execution before the expiration of the appeal period. The trial court’s order issuing the writ was therefore null and void. The Court also noted that the Mayor’s answer contained no counterclaim or prayer for Castro’s ejectment, and that petitioners were deprived of a hearing on the motion for execution.
AI Generated by Armztrong.