You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2ee0?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[APOLONIO PANER v. GAVINO SEPULVEDA](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2ee0?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c2ee0}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-11638, Apr 30, 1959 ]

APOLONIO PANER v. GAVINO SEPULVEDA +

DECISION

105 Phil. 633

[ G.R. No. L-11638, April 30, 1959 ]

APOLONIO PANER, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. GAVINO SEPULVEDA, JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, AND GUILLERMO T. GARCIA, RESPONDENTS AND APELLEES.

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

This is  an appeal from a judgment rendered  by the Court of  First Instance  of  Davao dismissing the appellant's petition for mandamus  (civil No. 103).

On 23 June 1956, Guillermo  T. Garcia brought in the Municipal  Court  of the  City of Davao a detainer action against Johnny Anthony and Crisostomo Paner to recover the possession  of a house  (civil  No.  2253).  On 6  July Apolonio Paner filed a motion praying that he be allowed to intervene, attaching thereto his answer in intervention.

On 19 July the Municipal Court  denied his motion.  Motion for reconsideration filed by  him was  denied on 27  July. On 31 July  Apolonio Paner filed in  the Court of  First Instance of  Davao a  petition for a writ to compel the Municipal Court to allow him to intervene in the  detainer case.  On  14 August  respondent Garcia  and on  17 August respondent Judge  of the Municipal  Court filed  their answers.  After hearing and after the petitioner had filed his  memorandum,  on 26  September the  Court  rendered judgment  dismissing  the petition  for  mandamus.   The petitioner filed  a  motion for reconsideration which  was denied on  6 October.  The  petitioner has appealed.

It appears that after judgment had become final and executory in civil case  No.  1213 of the Court of  First Instance of Davao,  Guillermo  T.   Garcia,  plaintiff  vs. Benita B.  Vda. de Mercado  and Apolonio  Paner et  al., defendants, the Court  issued a writ  of execution;  that pursuant thereto, the Sheriff of Davao levied upon execution and on 26  April sold at public auction to Guillermo T. Garcia  all  interests,  rights and  title of  the  appellant in and to a house  located at Tiongko Avenue, Davao City, erected on  a parcel  of  land  owned by Vicenta M.  Vda. de  Tiongko, subject  to appellant's  right of redemption within one  year from the date of sale; that the appellant having failed to redeem the house  within  the  statutory period, the Sheriff of Davao executed  and  issued a certificate of  absolute sale  thereof in favor of Guillermo T. Garcia, the purchaser of the house at public auction; that on  23 June 1956, the  latter brought in  the Municipal Court of the City of  Davao a  detainer action  against Johnny Anthony and Crisostomo Paner to recover possession of the house (civil No. 2253);  that  the  appellant Apolonio Paner moved to  intervene  in the detainer  case; and that in the appellant's answer in intervention attached to his motion  for intervention,  he  impugns the  validity of the execution sale  for lack of notice to him and failure to comply  with the rules of court,  and alleges that  he is still in possession of the house which  is sought to be recovered by the  purchaser at public  auction Guillermo T. Garcia in the detainer case.

If the appellant Apolonio Paner be allowed to intervene in the detainer action by which the plaintiff, the purchaser of the house at public auction, seeks  to recover it  from the  defendants  Johnny  Anthony and  Crisostomo Paner, the appellant  could raise questions  tending  to defeat the plaintiff's title to the house over which the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction.  In view thereof, the Municipal Court was  correct in not allowing the appellant to intervene  in the detainer case.

The judgment  appealed from is  affirmed, with  costs against the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion and  Endencia, JJ.,  concur.

tags