Landrito v. Gonzalez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maxima San Pedro and Perpetua San Pedro filed a forcible entry and detainer suit (Case No. 152) against Teresa Landrito and Flaviano Garcia in the justice of the peace court of Tagig, Rizal. The plaintiffs therein obtained an adverse judgment, ordering the defendants to vacate the land and remove a bay-window constructed thereon by September 1, 1936. Procedural History: The defendants failed to perfect an appeal from the judgment, which consequently became final and executory. The plaintiffs then sought and obtained the execution of the judgment. The Petition: Teresa Landrito and Flaviano Garcia filed a petition for certiorari with injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the justice of the peace, the plaintiffs in the original suit, and the provincial sheriff. They alleged that the court of origin erred in denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and in finally dismissing the case with abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in denying the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the case with abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The appealed orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal are affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs is made as the appellants are poor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the preliminary injunction: The Court of First Instance did not err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The original judgment in the forcible entry and detainer case had become final and executory due to the failure of the defendants therein (now appellants) to perfect an appeal. Since the judgment was final and executory, there was no legal basis to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent its execution. The appellants' claim that the court of origin erred in this regard is therefore without merit. On the dismissal of the case with abuse of discretion: The Court of First Instance did not commit an abuse of discretion in dismissing the case. While the appellants litigated as paupers in the Court of First Instance and in the Supreme Court, they did not do so in the justice of the peace court. They paid the necessary fees and litigated as solvent parties in the original case. Consequently, they were under a legal duty to post the bond required by law had they wished to take an appeal. Their failure to do so, coupled with their inaction until long after the judgment had been executed, rendered their petition without merit. The lower court correctly acted in dismissing the case.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and injunction to prevent the execution of a final and executory judgment in a forcible entry and detainer case is without merit where the petitioners failed to perfect an appeal by posting the required bond, especially when they did not litigate as paupers in the original case.