GR L 6214; (November, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6214 November 20, 1953
MARIA VILLONGCO, CARMEN BERNAL and RAMON BERNAL, petitioners, vs. Hon. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, presiding Judge, Branch A, of the Court of First Instance of Manila; VICTORIA GAERLAN and SALVADOR GAERLAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners (tenants) leased part of a building from respondents (landlords) in 1947. After petitioners failed to pay rent, respondents sued for ejectment in the municipal court. Petitioners counterclaimed, alleging respondents fraudulently misrepresented their right to occupy the land, inducing petitioners to spend P8,000 on improvements. The municipal court ordered ejectment and payment of rent, dismissing the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance but lost due to their lawyer’s non-appearance. Their petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-4039) was denied on January 28, 1952. On March 5, 1952, petitioners filed a separate civil case (No. 15963) for damages based on the alleged fraud, attaching an affidavit claiming respondents were fraudulently concealing or disposing of property and had no other security for the claim. The court issued a writ of preliminary attachment ex-parte. Respondents moved to dismiss (claiming res judicata) and to dissolve the attachment. They later filed a supplement to the motion to dissolve, denying the fraud allegations and asserting they owned other properties (a restaurant, refrigerator, piano, and real estate). The court denied the motion to dismiss but later dissolved the attachment. Petitioners sought certiorari to annul the dissolution order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dissolving the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the dissolution of the attachment. The Court held:
1. The respondent judge did not act without jurisdiction. The order dissolving the attachment was based on the integrated motion (original and supplement), not solely on the res judicata ground already rejected. Any clerical reference to the earlier motion was formal and did not affect jurisdiction.
2. The filing of an answer did not waive the motion to dissolve the attachment, as the issues in the motion (facts supporting attachment) are distinct from those in the main action.
3. On the merits, the dissolution was proper. Petitioners’ affidavit contained mere conclusions of law (e.g., fraudulent concealment) without stating specific acts. Respondents’ supplement specifically denied these allegations and asserted ownership of other properties, which petitioners did not rebut. Under the rules, petitioners had the burden to prove their affirmative allegations but failed to submit any proof. The respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in finding the attachment improperly issued. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved, with costs against petitioners.