G.R. No. L-16222; May 31, 1961
JOSE H. MENDOZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDRES ALANO and GREGORIO SALCEDO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This case originated from a judgment in an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 90) awarding possession of two parcels of land to plaintiff Jose H. Mendoza. The Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution commanding the defendants, Andres Alano and Gregorio Salcedo, to vacate the premises and deliver possession to Mendoza, and ordering the sheriff to refrain the defendants from possessing the lands. Upon service of this writ, defendant Salcedo refused to accept it, while Alano received it. Both defendants, however, refused to vacate the land, preventing the sheriff from delivering possession to the plaintiff.
Consequently, Mendoza filed a motion to declare the defendants in contempt of court for disobeying the writ. The trial court, after requiring answers and conducting a hearing, found Alano and Salcedo guilty of contempt under subsection (b) of Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court and sentenced each to four months’ imprisonment. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved purely legal questions.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants’ refusal to vacate the land pursuant to the issued writ of execution constitutes contempt of court under subsection (b), Section 3, Rule 64.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the contempt order, ruling that the defendants’ refusal did not constitute punishable contempt under the cited rule. The legal logic hinges on the proper procedure for executing a judgment for the delivery of real property. The Court clarified that such a judgment is an “ordinary judgment” executable under paragraph (d), Section 8 of Rule 39, not a “special judgment” under Section 9 of the same rule. Under the correct procedure (Rule 39, Sec. 8[d]), the writ of execution must be directed to the sheriff, commanding that officer to deliver possession to the prevailing party. The Clerk of Court erred by issuing a writ directly commanding the defendants to vacate, which was an unauthorized act.
Since the writ issued was legally invalid, the defendants’ disobedience of it did not constitute contempt under subsection (b) of Rule 64, which punishes disobedience of a “lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court.” Furthermore, the Court, citing Quizon vs. Philippine National Bank, held that contempt arising from a judgment for delivery of real property falls under subsection (h) of Section 3, Rule 64, not subsection (b). Subsection (h) punishes a person who, after being dispossessed by the sheriff, re-enters or disturbs the possession of the prevailing party. Here, the sheriff was never able to place Mendoza in possession due to the defendants’ refusal to leave, so the scenario contemplated by subsection (h) had not occurred. Therefore, the defendants could not be validly punished for contempt under either provision.