EN
BANC
ANGEL
ESLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. L-18236
January
31, 1964
-versus-
DOMINGO
ELLAMA AND
FELOMINO DE LA CRUZ,
Defendants,
DOMINGO
ELLAMA,
Defendant-Appellee.
D
E C I S I
O N
LABRADOR,
J :
This is an appeal directly
prosecuted to this Court from an Order of the Court of First Instance
of
Iloilo dated December 9, 1960, issued in its Civil Case No. 4859
entitled
"Esler vs. Ellama and De la Cruz", directing the plaintiff
to
return
the parcel of land subject of an action for unlawful detainer appealed
to the Court of First Instance from a Justice of the Peace Court, but
reserving
to plaintiff the right to bring the corresponding action of detainer in
the Court of Agrarian Relations.
On June 26, 1957
plaintiff
filed an action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Igbaras, Iloilo,
alleging
that plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land containing an area of
more
than 8.7 hectares; that in September, 1950, he delivered one hectare
thereof
to defendant under a verbal agreement whereby defendant undertook to
deliver
a one-third share of the produce as yearly rental, and that defendant
gave
the agreed rentals yearly until 1957, but thereafter refused to abide
by
the contract. He prayed that defendant vacate the land, return
possession
thereof to plaintiff and pay damages and costs.
The defendant answered
the Complaint denying the material allegations, alleging that the land
belonged to the State, and praying that plaintiff pay him damages for
molesting
him with the case. The Justice of the Peace Court after trial ordered
defendant
to vacate the premises and pay plaintiff P5.00 a month from January,
1951
to September, 1957 and to pay the costs.
The defendant, having
appealed from the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court to the
Court
of First Instance, in the latter Court plaintiff moved for execution
pending
appeal. The judge granted the motion and issued an execution. This
Order
is dated March 22, 1958. But on August 20, 1960, the Court itself
revoked
the order of execution and ordered the dismissal of the action on the
ground
that under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1199, known as the
Agricultural
Tenancy Act, the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction of the
suit.
The defendant sought to reconsider the Order praying that instead, the
judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court be revoked, as well as the
Order
for its execution, and that plaintiff be ordered to return the land
with
P520 as damages. After various motions and countermotions, the Court
issued
the Order of December 9, 1960. A motion to reconsider the Order was
denied,
hence this appeal by plaintiff-appellant.
The gist of the appeal
is that since the Order for the dismissal of the case was issued on
August
20, 1960, and said dismissal had become final, the Court could no
longer
issue its order of December 9, 1960 directing the return of the
property.
The argument, while apparently correct, would be productive of clear
injustice.
As a matter of principle, Courts should be authorized, as in this case,
at any time to order the return of property erroneously ordered to be
delivered
to one party, if the Order was found to have been issued without
jurisdiction.
Authority for the return of the property is expressed under the
provision
of Section 5 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, which reads as follows:
"Sec. 5. Effect
of reversal of executed judgment.- Where the judgment executed is
reversed
totally or partially on appeal, the trial court, on motion, after the
case
is remanded to it, may issue such orders of restitution as equity and
justice
may warrant under the circumstances."
WHEREFORE, the appeal should
be, as it is hereby, dismissed, with costs against appellant. So
ordered.
Bengzon, C.J.,
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur. |