G.R. No. L-20294 January 30, 1965
FILOMENA SALAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORA QUINGA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Filomena Salas filed an action against Flora Quinga, as Administratrix of the estate of Ceferino Datoon, seeking reconveyance of a parcel of land (Lot 7741) that Salas had mortgaged to Datoon via a sale a retro. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo initially dismissed Salas’s complaint, ordered possession delivered to Quinga, and awarded damages to Quinga. Salas appealed. Pending appeal, Quinga obtained execution and took possession of the land in 1951. In 1958, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, ordering Quinga to execute a deed of reconveyance to Salas upon Salas’s withdrawal of a consigned amount, and to turn over material possession and any funds held by the court-appointed receiver. This reversal was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1961. After the decision became final, the sheriff delivered possession of the land to Salas, and Quinga executed the deed of reconveyance on March 24, 1962. However, Quinga resisted an order to turn over the products (crops) of the land collected during her possession from 1951 onward, arguing the appellate decision did not mention such products. The trial court ordered her to restore the products, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Flora Quinga, who obtained possession of the land through execution pending appeal but later lost on final appeal, is obligated to restore not only the land but also its products (or the value thereof) collected during her possession to the prevailing party, Filomena Salas.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s orders, holding Quinga obligated to account for and deliver the products of the land collected during her possession. The Court ruled that: (1) Quinga, having obtained execution pending appeal and taken possession, replaced the receiver for all legal purposes in collecting the land’s produce. Thus, the Court of Appeals’ decree to deliver “all the funds which the receiver may have in his hands” applied to her as if she were the receiver; (2) Restitution of the land and its products is expressly provided under Rule 39, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes the trial court to issue restitution orders as equity and justice may warrant upon reversal of an executed judgment; (3) Equity and justice demand Quinga account for the products because, had she not obtained premature execution, Salas would have remained in possession and received the crops; and (4) Quinga’s defense that the land and products had been distributed to Datoon’s heirs is unavailing, as she, as administratrix, knew of Salas’s claim and the pending appeal, and was personally answerable for failing to reserve the assets pending final judgment. Costs were awarded against Quinga.