G.R. No. L-25949 May 22, 1969
BERNARDO O. SALAZAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MRS. EMILIANA LIBRES DE CASTRODES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee Bernardo O. Salazar acquired a parcel of land in Guindulman, Bohol, from Bienvenido C. Libres on July 28, 1941. Salazar had been in open, public, continuous, and peaceful possession of the land, exercising dominion and paying taxes, until August 24, 1960, when Bienvenido C. Libres, employing threat and intimidation, claimed ownership and gathered produce from the land. Consequently, on October 1, 1960, Salazar filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 1380) for recovery of ownership and possession against Bienvenido C. Libres before the Court of First Instance of Bohol. The court decided in Salazar’s favor on May 9, 1962, declaring him the owner and ordering the defendant to vacate. A writ of execution was issued on July 16, 1962. When the Provincial Sheriff sought to enforce the writ, the defendants-appellants (siblings of Bienvenido C. Libres) asserted an adverse claim, alleging the land was part of the undivided intestate estate of their deceased father, Alipio Libres. This claim was a surprise to Salazar, as the defendants had never made such a representation since 1941 and did not intervene in the prior civil case. Salazar then filed the present action to quiet title. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. During the trial, the parties stipulated to be bound by the decision of the Court of Appeals in the appealed Civil Case No. 1380. The Court of Appeals subsequently decided that case, confirming the lower court’s decision and declaring Salazar the owner and the deed of sale valid. The lower court rendered its decision on December 14, 1965, vindicating Salazar’s ownership, based on the stipulated records and the Court of Appeals’ decision. The defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in: 1) denying the motion to dismiss the complaint; 2) applying the judgment in the previous action in personam (Civil Case No. 1380) to the case at bar, which is also an action in personam; and 3) making a finding of partition of a hereditary estate by relying solely on a deed of sale executed by one heir without the knowledge or consent of the other co-heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appeal was devoid of merit. On the first alleged error, it was too late to raise the motion to dismiss on appeal, especially since the defendants had stipulated during trial to be bound by the Court of Appeals’ decision in the prior case. On the second alleged error, the defendants’ agreement to be bound by the Court of Appeals’ decision rendered the issue moot. On the third alleged error, the matter was factual in character, and the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in the appeal was limited to questions of law. The Court found the defendants’ appeal to be a form of harassment, obstinately delaying the administration of justice. The decision was affirmed with modification: defendants were ordered to pay attorney’s fees of P1,500.00, and treble costs were charged against the defendants, payable by their counsel, Attorney Lilio L. Amora.