GR L 2851; (January, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2851; January 31, 1950
ANGELA GOYENA DE QUIZON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ALEX F. MAGTIBAY, and PAULINA B. DE LA CRUZ, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The trial court rendered a judgment based on a compromise agreement, declaring defendants Magtibay and de la Cruz as absolute owners of the disputed property but granting plaintiff Quizon the right to repurchase it for P5,500, payable in two installments (P3,000 within 90 days and P2,500 within one year). The judgment stipulated that failure to pay any installment would result in forfeiture of Quizon’s right to purchase and the amount already paid, and she would be obligated to vacate the premises. Quizon paid the first installment but failed to pay the second on time, alleging inability to determine who between the separated spouses was entitled to receive payment. The court granted her an extension to deposit the amount with the clerk of court, but she failed to meet this extended deadline. The court then issued an order declaring the forfeiture of the P3,000 and her right to repurchase, and ordered her to vacate. Quizon belatedly deposited the P2,500. Subsequently, a writ of execution for the delivery of the property was issued and the sheriff purported to deliver possession to the defendants’ son. Defendants then filed petitions to have Quizon declared in contempt for allegedly refusing to vacate. The trial court found her guilty of contempt and ordered her imprisoned until she complied.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Angela Goyena de Quizon, was properly held in contempt of court for alleged disobedience of the judgment and orders to vacate the property.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the contempt order and acquitted Quizon. The Court held that the judgment requiring the delivery of real property must be executed in accordance with Section 8(d) of Rule 39 (now the Rules of Court), which pertains to the sheriff’s duty to enforce such judgments. The sheriff’s return did not show that Quizon herself was required by the sheriff to vacate and refused; it only stated that the sheriff contacted unspecified “occupants of the ground floor” and then delivered possession to the defendants’ son. Contempt for disobedience of a judgment requiring delivery of property falls under Section 3(h) of Rule 64 (now the Rules of Court), which pertains to disobedience of a lawful order of a court, but the execution must first be properly carried out by the sheriff. Since the sheriff did not properly serve the order upon Quizon or report her personal refusal to obey, she could not be punished for contempt. The duty to enforce the judgment rested solely with the sheriff, who could have used the public force if necessary.
AI Generated by Armztrong.