Encarnacion v. Provincial Sheriff of Rizal
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the eviction of lessees Gervasia Encarnacion and Urbano Navarro from land owned by Ayala y Compañia. The lessees failed to pay rent on the leased properties since November 5, 1935, and May 1, 1935, respectively. Following their failure to pay, judgments were rendered in eviction cases (civil cases Nos. 1415 and 1416) in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Pedro Makati, Rizal, which became final due to the lessees' failure to appeal. 2. Procedural History: After the judgments in the eviction cases became final, writs of execution were issued, authorizing the provincial sheriff to remove and, if necessary, destroy the houses belonging to the lessees located on Ayala y Compañia's land. The lessees then filed an action for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to prevent the sheriff from enforcing these writs. The Court of First Instance denied the injunction and authorized the sheriff to proceed with the execution, leading to the current appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants are seeking to overturn the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They argue that the sheriff should not be authorized to remove or destroy their houses without an express court order, citing Act No. 89. However, the Supreme Court considered Act No. 89, which allows for the removal or destruction of improvements upon express authorization after due hearing and failure of the defendant to remove them, to have retroactive effect. The Court found that the lower court's decision was in accordance with this law, affirming the sheriff's authority to execute the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal is in accordance with the law. Whether Act No. 89, promulgated after the judgments in the ejectment cases became final but before the execution, can be applied retroactively to authorize the removal and destruction of the petitioners' houses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, upholding the authority of the provincial sheriff to remove and, if necessary, destroy the houses of the petitioners to enforce the writ of execution. The Court ruled that Act No. 89, being procedural in nature, has retroactive effect and empowers the lower court to authorize the sheriff to remove the houses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the judgment is in accordance with the law: The Court found that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal was in accordance with the law. The judgment authorized the provincial sheriff to enforce the writ of execution issued in the ejectment cases, which included the removal and potential destruction of the houses belonging to the petitioners. This action was deemed necessary to place the land at the complete disposal of the respondent, Ayala y Compañia, as stipulated in the final judgments of the lower courts. The conduct of the petitioners in seeking to remain in possession without paying rent, despite acknowledging the judgments against them, was characterized as unjust and unreasonable. On the retroactive application of Act No. 89: The Court held that Act No. 89, promulgated on October 26, 1936, settled the question before it. Section 1 of Act No. 89 explicitly states that a provincial sheriff shall not destroy, demolish, or remove improvements constructed by the defendant in ejectment cases unless expressly authorized by the court. The court may grant such authorization upon petition of the plaintiff and after due hearing, if the defendant fails to remove the improvements within a reasonable time after being ordered to do so. The Court reasoned that this law is procedural in nature and, as such, can validly have a retroactive effect. This retroactive application allows the lower court to do what it did on the date of the appealed judgment, as if the law were already in force. Consequently, the respondents' sheriff was empowered to remove the appellants' houses from the lands in question and, if necessary, destroy them to fully recover possession for Ayala y Compañia.
Main Doctrine
Act No. 89, which governs the execution of judgments in ejectment cases concerning the removal of improvements, has a retroactive effect and may authorize the sheriff to remove or destroy such improvements even if constructed prior to its enactment, provided the conditions set forth in the law are met.