GR L 35336; (October, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35336 October 27, 1983
AMALIA VDA. DE SUAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, BRANCH I, LORENZO L. EVIOTA and MARIANA EVIOTA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 5654 for cancellation of document, recovery of possession, and damages before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao, Branch I. The court dismissed their complaint and ordered them to pay damages and attorney’s fees to the defendants. This judgment became final and executory after the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ appeal for procedural lapses. Consequently, the provincial sheriff levied on execution and sold at public auction three parcels of land owned by petitioners in favor of private respondents, the Eviotas. Petitioners later claimed they had no knowledge of the execution sale until served with a writ of possession.
Subsequently, private respondents filed an ex-parte motion in the concluded Civil Case No. 5654, seeking an order to authorize the sheriff to execute an absolute deed of sale for one specific lot (Lot No. 6124) and to cancel the title in the name of petitioner Amalia Vda. de Suan. Respondent Judge Cusi granted the motion. Petitioners then filed this certiorari petition, arguing the CFI of Davao lacked jurisdiction (properly venue) as the land is in Davao del Sur, and that the judge abused his discretion by granting the ex-parte motion without allowing them to oppose it.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch I, lacked jurisdiction (venue) over the original case.
2. Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the ex-parte motion.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court clarified that the challenge pertained to venue, not jurisdiction. Petitioners are estopped from raising this objection. They themselves voluntarily filed the original case (Civil Case No. 5654) in the CFI of Davao, thereby submitting to its jurisdiction and waiving any improper venue. A party cannot invoke a court’s authority to seek relief and then repudiate that same authority upon receiving an adverse judgment. The Court condemned such a practice of approbating and reprobating. Furthermore, the CFI of Davao and its branches constituted a single court for the province, and no legal impediment prevented Branch I from trying the case.
On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The decision in Civil Case No. 5654 was final and executory. The auction sale was conducted with due publication, and the order granting the ex-parte motion was a mere procedural consequence to effectuate that final judgment. The petitioners’ claim of being deprived of an opportunity to oppose the motion was unmeritorious, as they could have filed a motion for reconsideration but did not. The respondent judge acted within his authority in issuing the order to implement the final and executory decision. The temporary restraining order was dissolved.