GR L 2834; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2834; May 23, 1951
Encarnacion Caparas, petitioner, vs. Nicasio Yatco, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and Dominador Alvela, respondents.
FACTS
By virtue of a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 9013 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, the provincial sheriff sold at public auction a mortgaged property to satisfy a judgment. Petitioner Encarnacion Caparas was the highest bidder, purchasing the property for P7,969.40. After the sale, respondent Dominador Alvela, the judgment debtor, filed a motion stating that a surplus of P1,084.55 from the proceeds remained and had not been turned over to him. The court ordered petitioner to deliver this amount to respondent. Petitioner failed to comply, leading the court to grant a writ of execution. Upon continued failure, the court issued a peremptory order giving petitioner five days to return the amount. Petitioner again failed to comply. On February 9, 1949, respondent Judge Nicasio Yatco declared petitioner in contempt of court under Rule 64, section 3(b), and ordered her arrest and confinement until she complied. Petitioner filed this petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction, which was granted upon posting a P500 bond.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted correctly in declaring petitioner in contempt of court for her failure to return the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale to the judgment debtor.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction. The Court held that petitioner’s claim to withhold the surplus of P1,084.55 to settle other alleged obligations (P300 and P400) of respondent was without merit. These obligations were distinct and independent from the mortgage credit foreclosed in Civil Case No. 9013 and were not junior encumbrances under Rule 70, section 4 of the Rules of Court. In fact, these obligations were the subject of another civil case (No. 9096) that had already been dismissed. As the mortgagor, respondent was entitled to the surplus from the foreclosure sale. Petitioner’s duty was to return the surplus to respondent. Her flagrant disobedience of the court order to do so constituted contempt of court. The respondent judge properly punished her for contempt under Rule 64, section 3(b) of the Rules of Court. Costs were awarded against petitioner.