ATAL MOSLEM and AMADO MOSLEM, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO M. SORIANO, and the HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAGUM DAVAO DEL NORTE, Branch VIII, SALA I, respondents.
FACTS
Antonio M. Soriano filed a civil case for recovery of possession and damages against petitioners Atal and Amado Moslem over four hectares of land. In their answer, the petitioners claimed peaceful possession for over twenty years, asserting the land was public domain, and filed a counterclaim for damages. During pre-trial, the parties, through their counsel, agreed to appoint a commissioner to survey the land boundaries, with the petitioners agreeing to vacate if found within Soriano’s titled property. The commissioner’s report confirmed the petitioners were within Soriano’s land, a finding they did not object to. Consequently, the court rendered a decision ordering the petitioners to vacate and pay costs.
Upon execution of the judgment, the petitioners refused to vacate. Soriano moved to have them declared in contempt. The petitioners, now with new counsel, opposed, arguing they could not be compelled to leave pending reimbursement for improvements as builders in good faith under the Civil Code. The respondent court found them guilty of contempt and ordered their arrest and imprisonment until they obeyed the vacate order, denying their motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioners can be declared in contempt of court for refusing to vacate in a case for delivery of possession of real property.
2. Whether petitioners can be declared in contempt pending payment for improvements under Articles 448 and 546 of the New Civil Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the contempt orders. On the first issue, the Court held the judgment was an ordinary one for the delivery of possession of real property, enforceable under Section 8(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the sheriff to oust the defeated party and deliver possession. It is not a “special judgment” under Section 9, Rule 39, which applies to acts other than payment of money or delivery of property. Following precedents like Rom v. Cobadora, mere refusal to vacate under an ordinary judgment does not constitute contempt; the proper remedy is execution by the sheriff. The lower court erred in applying Section 9.
On the second issue, the Court found the builder in good faith argument meritorious in the contempt context. Despite the petitioners’ pre-trial agreement and the finality of the possession case, special circumstances warranted consideration. The petitioners, members of a cultural minority, had the presumption of good faith under Article 527 of the Civil Code. Their initial counsel limited the pre-trial to the boundary issue, and the record was sketchy regarding whether they were mere squatters or had cultivated the land believing it was public domain before Soriano’s title. They were not precluded from pursuing reimbursement for improvements. Thus, their refusal to vacate pending such payment could not be contemptuous. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.
