G.R. Nos. L-51574-77 September 30, 1984
Victor Clapano, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Filomeno Gapultos, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an extrajudicial foreclosure by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) over mortgaged properties of spouses Conrado Crisostomo and Thelma Gallaza. After the redemption period lapsed, PNB sold the land to respondent Princessita Jabido-Maulit. Petitioners Fernando and Conchita Abellon, claiming to be tenants of the former owner, refused to vacate. The Court of First Instance (CFI) issued a Writ of Possession in favor of PNB and Maulit in Miscellaneous Case No. 326. Despite an Alias Writ, the Abellons and their workers re-entered the land.
Concurrently, the Abellons filed a Petition for Reinstatement before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) in CAR Case No. 44. The CAR issued a Restraining Order enjoining respondents from depriving the Abellons of possession. Subsequently, the CFI, in Special Civil Case No. 395, found prima facie evidence of contempt against petitioners for defying the Writ of Possession and directed the Provincial Fiscal to file separate Informations for Indirect Contempt. Petitioners moved to quash these Informations, but the CFI denied their motion.

ISSUE

Whether the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders for contempt and denying the motion to quash.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the assailed Orders. The legal logic rests on several grounds. First, the mere refusal to surrender property pursuant to a writ does not automatically constitute contempt, as established in Fuentes vs. Leviste. Second, and decisively, petitioners were recognized as tenants in the pending CAR Case No. 44, where a Compromise Agreement conceded their tenancy status. As tenants, they were protected by Presidential Decree No. 1038, which prohibits their ejectment except for causes provided by law and upon a final court order. The sale of the landholding is not a statutory cause for ejectment. Their possession, therefore, could not be deemed a contumacious defiance of the CFI’s writ but a lawful assertion of a right under agrarian laws. Third, the contempt charges improperly elevated what were essentially incidents of the civil possession case into separate criminal actions. The acts complained of should have been addressed within the original Miscellaneous Case No. 326. The CFI’s Orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion for disregarding the protective mantle of tenancy laws and the pending agrarian case.