Lacuna v. Ofilada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs executed a real estate mortgage in favor of defendant Vivencio D. Antonio covering five parcels of land and a building at 760 Sisa St., Sampaloc, Manila, to secure an indebtedness. Plaintiffs defaulted, leading Antonio to file a foreclosure action (Civil Case No. 18142). The court ordered the foreclosure, and after the decision became final, a writ of execution was issued. The sheriff sold the mortgaged properties at public auction to Antonio as the highest bidder, who executed a deed of sale on September 1, 1955. Antonio filed a motion for a writ of possession on September 19, 1955, which was granted. However, the sheriff inadvertently omitted the residential house at 760 Sisa St. from the original writ of possession. The Lacuna spouses (plaintiffs in the present case) opposed the inclusion of the building. Antonio requested the sheriff to rectify the error, leading to the issuance of an amended writ of possession on November 15, 1955. The Lacuna spouses moved to suspend the amended writ, alleging it was issued illegally, but their motion was denied. Their subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Procedural History: Plaintiffs filed an action before the Court of First Instance of Manila praying for the partition of the building at 760 Sisa St., Sampaloc, Manila, and for the declaration of the sheriff's sale and the amended writ of possession as illegal. The court initially granted an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction. Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of allegations. The court dissolved the injunction. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, which was granted, and the writ was reinstated. Defendants again moved for reconsideration, which was opposed by plaintiffs. On February 18, 1956, the court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the case, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to nullify orders issued in Civil Case No. 18142, as those issues had already been resolved. The Petition: Plaintiffs appealed the order dismissing their case, arguing that the court erred in dissolving the injunction and dismissing the case. The case was certified to the Supreme Court as it involved purely questions of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to annul the amended writ of possession issued in a prior case. Whether the amended writ of possession, which included the residential building inadvertently omitted from the original writ, was issued illegally.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, dismissing the case for lack of merit. The Court held that the lower court correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction to annul the amended writ of possession issued in Civil Case No. 18142.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction to annul the amended writ of possession: The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that a court of first instance has no power or jurisdiction to annul judgments or decrees of a coordinate court, as this function devolves upon the proper appellate court. The Court emphasized that the various branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila are coordinate courts, and allowing them to interfere with each other's judgments or decrees by injunctions would hinder the administration of justice. The Court cited Cabigao vs. Del Rosario, Eleasar vs. Zandueta, and Philippine National Bank vs. Javellana to support the rule that a judge of one branch cannot issue a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from carrying out an order of execution issued in another case by the judge of another branch of the same court. Therefore, the present case, which sought to nullify the amended writ of possession issued in Civil Case No. 18142, was correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On the legality of the amended writ of possession: The Supreme Court found no merit in the contention that the residential building was improperly included in the amended writ of possession. The Court noted that the building was indeed covered by the mortgage and was included in the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 18142. The inclusion of the building in the amended writ was merely to rectify an inadvertent omission from the original writ, which constituted a clerical error. Such clerical errors can be rectified without express authority from the court. The Court also pointed out that the plaintiffs themselves had brought this matter to the attention of the court when they objected to the amendment, and their objection was overruled, indicating that the issue had already been passed upon.
Main Doctrine
A court of first instance has no power or jurisdiction to annul judgments or decrees of a coordinate court, as this function devolves upon the proper appellate court. A judge of one branch of the Court of First Instance cannot issue a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from carrying out an order of execution issued in another case by the judge of another branch of the same court.