G.R. No. L-962; July 28, 1947
FELIX AZOTES, petitioner, vs. MANUEL BLANCO and JULIAN FIGURA, respondents.

FACTS

In a Court of First Instance of Iloilo case (No. 11396), a final judgment was rendered against petitioner Felix Azotes in favor of respondent Julian Figura regarding title and possession of a parcel of land. This judgment was executed in 1940, and the property was delivered to Figura. After liberation, the case record was reconstituted, and a new writ of execution was issued on June 3, 1946, but was later set aside upon Azotes’s motion, as the judgment had already been executed pre-war. On August 1, 1946, Figura filed a motion alleging that: (a) on March 30, 1942, Azotes was summoned to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for cutting 90 feet of bamboo from the land delivered to Figura, but proceedings were halted due to the Japanese invasion; and (b) Azotes continued to deprive Figura of possession, taking 700 feet of bamboo and other items in disregard of the executed judgment. The court ordered Azotes to appear on September 13, 1946, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for re-entering the property. Azotes failed to appear, and his attorney’s explanations were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to an order for his arrest. Azotes filed this petition for prohibition and certiorari, arguing: (a) the order declaring the record reconstituted was void due to lack of notice to him of the petition and hearing for reconstitution; and (b) the court lacked jurisdiction to punish for contempt for re-entry occurring more than five years after delivery of the property.

ISSUE

1. Whether the reconstitution of the case record was valid despite Azotes’s claim of lack of notice.
2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt a defendant who re-enters land delivered to the plaintiff more than five years after execution of the judgment.

RULING

1. On the reconstitution of the record: The petition is without merit. The record shows that notice of the motion for reconstitution and its hearing was duly served on Evidente & Evidente, attorneys for Azotes, on February 27, 1946, and a copy of the reconstitution order was served on them on March 21, 1946. Azotes raised new factual issues in his memorandum, such as that Evidente & Evidente had ceased to be his attorneys and lacked authority to bind him in reconstitution proceedings. However, these issues were not raised before the respondent court and are unsupported by evidence. Attorney Felix Evidente’s appearance on Azotes’s behalf in the reconstitution proceedings presumes his authority unless clearly disproven. Moreover, Azotes admitted in his opposition to the second motion for execution that the judgment had been complied with pre-war, implying the existence of the judgment and execution, despite his reservation to challenge the reconstitution’s validity.
2. On jurisdiction to punish for contempt: The court has jurisdiction. Rule 64, section 3(h) provides that contempt includes the act of a person who, after being dispossessed of real property by court judgment or process, re-enters or attempts to re-enter the property to execute acts of ownership or possession, or disturbs the possession given to the entitled person. This provision sets no time limit for when re-entry constitutes contempt. Re-entry may occur more than five years after delivery by execution and still be punishable as contempt. The five-year period in Rule 39, section 6, refers to the time within which execution of judgment may be sought by motion, but a motion for contempt is not a motion for execution; it is a motion to punish a violation of that execution.
Petition dismissed with costs against petitioner.