G.R. No. L-4791 December 27, 1951
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Judge Cirilo C. Maceren and Judge Enrique A. Fernandez of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Carlos Iñigo, and Remedios Iñigo de Monfort, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to annul certain orders and a decision of the respondent judges concerning the Bago Iñigo Estate. The property was conveyed to the Republic of the Philippines by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator. The President designated the National Abaca and other Fibers Corporation (NAFCO) to administer the estate.
First Cause of Action: In Civil Case No. 13, Carlos Iñigo sued NAFCO. On July 22, 1950, respondent Judge Fernandez rendered a decision declaring the Republic as owner, stating NAFCO was in possession, and dismissing the complaint. After Iñigo filed a notice of appeal, he later moved to modify this decision based on a subsequent decision in another case. On March 19, 1951, Judge Fernandez granted the motion, ordering the receiver to turn over possession to Iñigo. The Republic claims this order is illegal as it deprives the state of property without due process, the Republic not being a party to the case.
Second Cause of Action: In Civil Case No. 558, Carlos Iñigo and Remedios Iñigo de Monfort sued NAFCO and the Philippine National Bank. NAFCO moved to include the Republic as a defendant, but respondent Judge Maceren denied the motion. On January 22, 1951, Judge Maceren rendered a decision declaring the heirs of Feliciano Iñigo as owners of the estate and ordering its transfer to them. NAFCO appealed. On March 2, 1951, Judge Maceren granted the plaintiffs’ motion for immediate execution of the judgment. The Republic claims this decision and execution order are arbitrary and without jurisdiction as they directly affect the Republic, which is not a party and cannot be sued without its consent.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should act on the petition for certiorari to annul the orders and decision of the respondent judges, given that the main cases are pending appeal before the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Regarding the first relief (against Judge Fernandez’s March 19, 1951 order), the Court found that NAFCO had already filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal calls for a decision on the merits of the same order. For the Supreme Court to act on the petition would be premature, as the matter is already submitted to the Court of Appeals’ appellate jurisdiction.
Regarding the second relief (against Judge Maceren’s January 22, 1951 decision and March 2, 1951 execution order), the Court found that NAFCO and the Philippine National Bank had already perfected their appeal to the Court of Appeals. This appeal involves the validity and merits of the decision, the same issues raised in the certiorari petition. Acting on the petition would likewise be premature. The claim concerning the execution order should be addressed to the Court of Appeals, as it is a process in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The Court declined to rule on the Republic’s claim of being the real party in interest and not subject to suit without consent, as the main case is not before it but before the Court of Appeals. It noted that a prior resolution (G.R. No. L-4493) had already held that the question of the Republic’s intervention should be raised on appeal. The proper course is to await the outcome of the appeals. The preliminary injunction issued was dissolved.