G.R. No. L-5011 December 17, 1952
CATALINO GALANG and MICAELA AGGABAO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MANUEL UYTIEPO, defendant, PEDRO GAMBOA, movant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 16, 1949, Catalino Galang and Micaela Aggabao filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 1328) against Manuel Uytiepo to recover possession of Lot No. 2305 in Escalante, Negros Occidental, with damages. The court rendered judgment on February 6, 1951, ordering Uytiepo to deliver possession to the plaintiffs and pay damages of P46,398.70. Uytiepo appealed. The plaintiffs moved for the appointment of a receiver, and the court appointed Atty. Geronimo R. Flores as receiver on March 10, 1951. On May 31, 1951, the receiver filed an urgent motion alleging that Pedro Gamboa, claiming to be a lessee of the lot, had caused sugarcane harvested from about seven hectares to be milled at the Central Azucarera de Danao, which act constituted contempt. The court ordered Gamboa to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Gamboa filed a motion for postponement, which was denied, and the judge ordered his arrest. Gamboa filed an urgent motion to revoke the arrest order, arguing the court had not acquired jurisdiction over him as he was not a party to the case. Another judge ordered his provisional release on bail. After a hearing, Judge Teodoro, on June 25, 1951, found Pedro Gamboa guilty of contempt, fined him P200, and ordered him to segregate and deliver to the receiver 60% of 800 piculs of sugar milled in his name, among other directives. Gamboa appealed this order. The receiver then moved to have Gamboa declared in contempt for non-compliance with the June 25 order. On July 3, 1951, Judge Teodoro verbally ordered Gamboa’s arrest and detention until he complied with the June 25 order, while allowing an appeal only as to the P200 fine but denying it as to the order to deliver the sugar. Gamboa was jailed and subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and habeas corpus (G.R. No. L-4893) with the Supreme Court, which on May 13, 1952, declared null and void the July 3, 1951 orders of Judge Teodoro. The present appeal concerns the June 25, 1951 contempt order against Pedro Gamboa.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding Pedro Gamboa guilty of contempt and ordering him to deliver 60% of 800 piculs of sugar to the receiver, despite Gamboa not being a party to the main ejectment case between Galang and Aggabao vs. Uytiepo.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order. The Court held that the judgment in Civil Case No. 1328 was binding only on the parties, Catalino Galang, Micaela Aggabao, and Manuel Uytiepo, and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. Pedro Gamboa was not a party to that case. According to Rule 39, Section 44(b), a judgment is conclusive only between parties and their privies. Gamboa claimed to have obtained a lease over the lot before the action was filed. An action for ejectment or possession of land is an action in personam; as such, the judgment is obligatory only for the parties and not for strangers. If a person not a party to the case is a possessor in good faith of the property in question, the judgment rendered in that case cannot be validly executed against him. The decision in the main case ordered only Uytiepo to deliver possession and pay damages; it contained no order prohibiting Pedro Gamboa from harvesting the cane he planted on the land. Gamboa could not be guilty of contempt merely for harvesting, without the receiver’s knowledge or consent, the cane planted on land he allegedly legally leased. The judgment against Uytiepo did not bind Gamboa. Consequently, (1) Gamboa could not be ejected from the land, and (2) he could not be ordered to deliver its fruits. Therefore, the contempt conviction and the order to deliver 60% of the 800 piculs of sugar to the receiver, which was essentially an execution of a judgment against a non-party, were without basis. The plaintiffs must prove, in an ordinary action and not in a contempt motion, that they have a better right than Gamboa to the sugar or the net product of the land. To order Gamboa to deliver the sugar to the receiver without even allowing him to appeal deprived him of the product of his labor without due process of law. The appealed order was revoked, with costs against the appellees.