FELIPE NACORDA and LUZ NACORDA, petitioners, vs. HON. NICASIO YATCO, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch), J. M. TUASON and CO., INC., and THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
FACTS
1. In Civil Case No. Q-4108, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. sued Fernando Castro to recover possession of a parcel of land (about 100 sq.m.) covered by its transfer certificate of title, alleging unlawful entry. The court (Judge Nicasio Yatco) rendered judgment for the plaintiff in August 1959, ordering Castro’s ejectment and payment of damages. The judgment became final, and a writ of execution and demolition order were issued.
2. On February 22, 1960, spouses Felipe and Luz Nacorda filed a petition in the same case (Q-4108) to lift the writ of execution and demolition, claiming ownership of the land and house through a series of transfers from Agustin de Torres, and alleging Castro was merely their tenant. Judge Yatco denied their petition.
3. On March 12, 1960, the Nacordas filed a separate reivindicatory action (Civil Case No. 5053) before another branch of the same court (Judge Hermogenes Caluag) against J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., seeking declaration of ownership and a preliminary injunction to restrain execution of the judgment in Q-4108.
4. On February 10, 1962, Judge Yatco issued an order in Q-4108 giving Castro 30 days to vacate and demolish the house. The Nacordas then filed the instant original petition for injunction with the Supreme Court to stop the execution and demolition, admitting Judge Caluag could not enjoin a coordinate branch. The Supreme Court gave due course but did not issue a preliminary injunction.
5. On March 19, 1962, Castro filed a manifestation in Q-4108 that he had voluntarily demolished his house. However, on March 21, 1962, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. moved for the sheriff to break into the padlocked house to complete demolition. Castro opposed, but the court granted the motion on March 27, 1962, finding the house still standing except for a removed small portion. The demolition was implemented on March 29, 1962.
6. The Nacordas then filed a “Supplementary Petition for Mandatory Injunction” in the Supreme Court case, asserting the demolished house belonged to them (not Castro) and praying for restoration of possession and reconstruction of the house.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for injunction (and supplementary mandatory injunction) is a proper remedy to prevent the enforcement of a final judgment in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. Q-4108) based on a claim of ownership by non-parties to that case.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the writ and DISMISSED the petition.
1. Injunction is improper to enforce a final judgment: Injunction is an ancillary writ and cannot be used to prevent enforcement of a final judgment, except possibly in a proper action to annul such judgment. The validity of the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-4108 (between J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Castro) was never questioned; it was final and binding on the parties therein.
2. Ownership claim not litigated in this petition: The Nacordas’ claim of ownership was not the subject of the instant petition; it was a bare assertion insufficient to obstruct a final judgment in a case where they were not parties. The issue in Q-4108 was merely possession, not ownership.
3. Proper remedy is the reivindicatory action: The Nacordas had already filed the proper action for declaration of ownership (Civil Case No. 5053) and should pursue their remedy there to its logical conclusion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the petition for injunction was not the appropriate vehicle to resolve ownership claims or to interfere with the execution of a final judgment in a separate case.
