G.R. No. L-323; July 31, 1946
RAMON A. TARNATE, petitioner, vs. INIGO S. DAZA, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, MODESTO CASTILLO, ex-Judge of Court of First Instance of Batangas, and VICENTE A. TARNATE, administrator of the estate of Paula Agoncillo, respondents.

FACTS

On April 18, 1944, respondent Judge Modesto Castillo ordered the heirs of the intestate Paula Agoncillo to pay respondent Vicente A. Tarnate the sum of P1,204 in equal parts. Subsequently, on an ex parte motion by Vicente A. Tarnate, respondent Judge Inigo S. Daza issued an order on January 17, 1946, directing petitioner Ramon A. Tarnate to pay Vicente A. Tarnate P235.64 within fifteen days, with authorization for a writ of execution in case of default. This amount represented petitioner’s alleged share in the obligation created by Judge Castillo’s 1944 order. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, invoking the moratorium under Executive Order No. 32. In an order dated February 6, 1946, Judge Daza ruled that Executive Order No. 32 was not applicable to at least P200.80 of the amount, as it became due for services rendered before the outbreak of war on December 8, 1941. Judge Daza then ordered petitioner to pay P200.80 immediately and authorized a writ of execution after five days. Petitioner filed this original petition for certiorari and prohibition. Respondents did not file an answer, and no parties appeared for oral argument.

ISSUE

Whether the orders of Judge Inigo S. Daza dated January 17, 1946, and February 6, 1946, compelling petitioner Ramon A. Tarnate to pay a monetary obligation to respondent Vicente A. Tarnate, infringe the moratorium established by Executive Order No. 32.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. Executive Order No. 32, dated March 10, 1945, temporarily suspends the enforcement of all debts and other monetary obligations payable within the Philippines, except those entered into in any area after it has been declared by Presidential Proclamation to be freed from enemy occupation and control. This suspension applies regardless of the dates of creation of the obligations, provided they were not contracted in a liberated area. The ban had not been lifted at the time of the case. The Court, citing Palacios vs. Daza and Provincial Government of Batangas, held that the orders of Judge Daza compelling payment infringed this moratorium. Whether the petitioner’s monetary obligation accrued prior to the war or on the date of Judge Castillo’s order (April 18, 1944), its enforcement was suspended, as it was not a debt contracted in an area after liberation. Consequently, the orders of January 17 and February 6, 1946, were set aside, with costs against respondent Vicente A. Tarnate.