Santos v. Mapa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of an undivided seven-eleventh part of a property registered under certificate of title No. 469. The petitioner, Nicomedes de los Santos, claims to have acquired this portion through a valid purchase in 1919. Lorenza Veneracion is alleged to own another undivided one-eleventh part, acquired from a remote predecessor in interest, Juan Medina 2.º. A judgment was rendered against Juan Medina 2.º in civil case No. 1829, ordering him to pay P4,500 plus interest and costs. An execution of this judgment led to an attachment and subsequent sale of the property, excluding Lorenza Veneracion's portion. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner filed civil case No. 2770 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, seeking to assert his title to the seven-eleventh portion and obtain a preliminary injunction against the sheriff to prevent the sale of his property. An ex parte preliminary injunction was initially granted. However, the respondent judge later set aside this injunction without a bond, and refused to reconsider the order, allowing the sheriff to proceed with the sale of the petitioner's portions. The petitioner then initiated this proceeding, seeking a writ of certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to nullify the orders of June 28, 1922, and August 10, 1922, issued by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, which dissolved a preliminary injunction and refused reconsideration. He argues these orders were issued in excess of jurisdiction and are prejudicial to his rights. The petition also sought to compel the lower court to transmit the case record and evidence, and to issue a preliminary injunction ex parte to stay the sale. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition but later ordered the respondents to demur or answer. The respondents filed a demurrer, which the petitioner sought to have disregarded, invoking Rule 40. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding the issue already decided.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in dissolving the preliminary injunction. Whether the petitioner's rights were prejudiced by the dissolution of the injunction.
Ruling
The demurrer filed by the respondents is sustained, and the petitioner is allowed to amend his complaint within the period prescribed by the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of excess of jurisdiction: The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija possessed jurisdiction to issue and dissolve injunctions. The dissolution of the preliminary injunction by the respondent judge did not necessarily constitute an excess of jurisdiction. The complaint did not sufficiently allege the reasons for the dissolution, nor did it establish that the judge exceeded his authority under Section 169 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which enumerates grounds for dissolution. The fact that the injunction was initially issued ex parte does not preclude its subsequent dissolution. On the issue of prejudice to petitioner's rights: No damage could result to the petitioner's rights over the undivided seven-eleventh part of the land. The property was registered under the Torrens system, and the petitioner's purchase was duly noted on the certificate of title. Neither the attachment nor the execution sale could affect his rights. Furthermore, his rights were secured by a proper indemnity bond furnished by the judgment creditors in view of his claim presented to the sheriff, as admitted by the petitioner himself. The exclusion of Lorenza Veneracion's portion, while the petitioner's was not, did not inherently prejudice the petitioner's claim, especially with the bond in place.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not prosper if the challenged order, while potentially erroneous, does not constitute an excess of jurisdiction, and no damage can result to the petitioner's rights, especially when those rights are secured by a proper bond.