Roxas v. Zandueta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judgment creditors obtained judgments against Claro Sta. Maria and his wife, Mercedes Roxas. To satisfy these judgments, executions were levied upon a rice mill. Valeriano Roxas, brother of Mercedes Roxas, intervened as a third-party claimant, asserting ownership of the rice mill. The creditors posted a bond of P14,000 to hold the sheriff harmless, and the sheriff proceeded to sell the rice mill at public auction, with the creditors as purchasers. Procedural History: Valeriano Roxas filed a civil action asserting ownership and seeking an injunction to prevent the sale. Later, he amended the complaint to seek an injunction against the sheriff delivering possession to the creditors. Judge Zandueta initially refused to grant an injunction. However, Judge Paredes, acting as vacation judge, ordered the sheriff to restore possession to Roxas upon posting a P1,000 bond. The creditors moved for reconsideration. Judge Zandueta, upon reconsideration, initially considered allowing the restorative order to continue with an additional bond of P13,000, making the total P14,000. Roxas failed to post the additional bond by June 9, 1932. Consequently, Judge Zandueta vacated the extension order and directed the sheriff to return possession of the rice mill to the creditors. The Petition: Valeriano Roxas filed an original application for certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the order of Judge Zandueta dated June 9, 1932, and to restrain the sheriff and creditors from taking possession of the rice mill. A preliminary injunction was granted by the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted within his powers and jurisdiction in issuing the order of June 9, 1932, vacating the prior interlocutory order of the vacation judge. Whether the purchasers at an execution sale have the right to take possession of the property within the year granted by law for redemption.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The order of June 9, 1932, is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge's jurisdiction to modify the interlocutory order: The Supreme Court held that the orders made by Judge Paredes and Judge Zandueta were both of an interlocutory nature. It is a rudimentary principle that such orders are subject to change within the discretion of the court. The order of Judge Paredes was not on a higher plane than if Judge Zandueta had made it himself. Therefore, the power of the presiding judge, upon a motion for reconsideration, to modify or abrogate such an order is unquestionable. The respondent judge, in vacating the prior order and directing the return of possession to the creditors, acted within his jurisdiction. On the issue of possession within the redemption period: The Court noted that the petitioner, Valeriano Roxas, might have a right to possession for at least one year from the date of execution sale, depending on his ownership, as suggested by the doctrine in Pabico vs. Ong Pauco. However, if such a right exists, it is protected by the bond given when he intervened as a third-party claimant. The Court explicitly stated that it cannot enter into the merits of whether Roxas is the true owner or has the asserted right to possession. The sole question before the Court in this certiorari proceeding was the jurisdiction of the judge to modify the interlocutory order, which was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
A judge of First Instance has the jurisdiction to modify or abrogate an interlocutory order previously issued by another judge acting as a vacation judge in the same case, upon a motion for reconsideration.