G.R. No. L-24764 July 17, 1969
EUFROSINO ROM, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CLEMENTE COBADORA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Both parties disputed possession and ownership of a ten-hectare parcel of land. Appellant Cobadora first filed a forcible entry case against appellee Rom, which, after appeal, resulted in a final decision by the Court of Appeals on March 4, 1960, declaring Cobadora entitled to possession (but not ownership) and ordering Rom to return the property and pay for its fruits. This judgment was executed, restoring Cobadora to possession. Subsequently, appellee Rom filed an action to quiet title over the same land. The Court of First Instance and, on appeal, the Court of Appeals, rendered a final judgment declaring Rom the lawful owner and ordering the restoration of the land to him, which judgment became final. Upon issuance of a writ of execution for this ownership judgment, appellant Cobadora refused to sign the writ and attempted to retain a portion of the land where his house was located. Appellee Rom then charged Cobadora with contempt. The lower court found Cobadora guilty of contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(b) for disobedience of a lawful writ of execution and sentenced him to pay a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-appellant, Clemente Cobadora, was properly convicted of contempt for his refusal to vacate the land and his attempt to retain a portion thereof after a final judgment of ownership in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.

RULING

No. The judgment of contempt is reversed. The Court held that the earlier forcible entry judgment in favor of Cobadora, which dealt only with possession, did not constitute res judicata barring the subsequent action to quiet title which settled the issue of ownership in favor of Rom. Therefore, the ownership judgment was valid and binding. However, Cobadora’s mere refusal or unwillingness to relinquish the property did not constitute contempt. The writ of execution was addressed to the sheriff, whose duty under Rule 39, Sections 13 and 14 was to oust the defeated party and place the prevailing party in possession. The sheriff’s return showed he had placed Rom in possession, save for the portion with Cobadora’s house. For the removal of such improvements (the house), the Rules require a special court order upon petition of the judgment creditor after due hearing and after the debtor fails to remove them within a reasonable time. The proper recourse for Rom was to apply for such a special demolition order, not to institute contempt proceedings. Thus, Cobadora’s conviction for contempt was improper.