G.R. No. L-23666; September 29, 1967
EUSTAQUIO AMOREN and DOROTEA AMOREN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE HERNANDO PINEDA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte and DIONISIO CANONEO, MELCHOR APONTE, GENARO YAGUS, LOPE SANCHEZ, EULALIO CALLERO, BENJAMIN SERA, BERNARDINO CENIZAL, and ANTONIO TOLINGBAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Eustaquio and Dorotea Amoren filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus to compel respondent Judge Hernando Pineda to proceed with contempt proceedings against private respondents. The background involves a forcible entry and detainer case (Civil Case No. 75) filed by the Amoren spouses against private respondents in the Justice of the Peace Court of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. Private respondents were declared in default, and the court ruled in favor of the Amorens, ordering ejectment and payment of damages. Subsequently, private respondents filed an action (Civil Case No. 319) in the Court of First Instance to annul the Justice of the Peace Court’s judgment, alleging lack of jurisdiction over their persons (due to lack of summons) and over the subject matter (as the land was allegedly in Lala, not Kapatagan). The Court of First Instance (Judge Estipona) dismissed the complaint. Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 28493-R), but their appeal was dismissed for failure to file their brief. After the Justice of the Peace Court’s decision became final, the sheriff executed it, but private respondents allegedly re-entered the land. The Amorens then sought contempt charges in the Court of First Instance. Respondent Judge Pineda dismissed the contempt petition, ruling that the Justice of the Peace Court of Kapatagan lacked jurisdiction over the property (as it was in another municipality), rendering its decision void ab initio, and thus, private respondents incurred no liability for re-entry.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the contempt proceedings on the ground that the Justice of the Peace Court of Kapatagan lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, thereby rendering its judgment void.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of respondent Judge Pineda. The jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Kapatagan over the disputed property and the parties had already been conclusively upheld by the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 319. The decision of Judge Estipona dismissing the action to annul the inferior court’s judgment became final after the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. This finality established the fact of jurisdiction as res judicata, barring any relitigation. The dismissal of the appeal due to private respondents’ failure to file a brief (even if due to insufficient resources) did not alter its finality, as they could have sought to prosecute the appeal as paupers but did not. Consequently, the writ of execution was lawful. The Court also clarified that an appeal under Section 10, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court was not the proper remedy for petitioners, as that applies to appeals by a person adjudged in contempt, not to a dismissal of contempt charges on jurisdictional grounds. The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance to adjudicate the contempt charge on its merits.