Back to Search
JurisprudenceA.M. No. P-99-1297

A.M. No. P-99-1297 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA, COMPLAINANT, VS. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE OCCIDENTAL, MINDORO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 1RA 551RA 493RA 351RA 185RA 227RA 249
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

the case is a common property: That, likewise, we subsequently filed a case against our sister Ludivina Marisga Magbanua for completely disregarding our rights and interest over the aforesaid property entitled Severino Marisga, Jr.

Decision

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, therefore, the Court has to render judgment for the plaintiff as against the defendant spouses and orders the latter to vacate the subject lot covered by TCT No. 6804 and to stay ejectment, has to pay P500.00 rental a month to the plaintiff until defendants desire to pay off the plaintiff on the subject lot or until they vacate the same. [1] After the decision had become final and executory, the RTC on October 24, 1996 issued a writ of execution. However, on January 14, 1997, complainant moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and order of demolition, alleging that the same was necessary in view of the sheriff's report showing that "there was failure in implementing the writ of execution" and also because she was in dire need of the property. [2] The RTC granted her motion and on April 17, 1997 issued the alias writ of execution and on May 19, 1997, a writ of demolition. [3] In her complaint, complainant alleges that notwithstanding the foregoing, respondent sheriff still "failed to enforce/implement said execution" when it was his ministerial duty to do so. Complainant, therefore, prayed that "a proper administrative case be filed against" respondent sheriff. In his comment, dated August 21, 1997, [4] respondent sheriff claimed that the property in question was owned in common by the heirs of the late Severino Marisga and Eleuteria dela Cruz-Marisga and that, as such, there was a need for relocation survey of the property to determine the portion owned by complainant before he can enforce the said decision. Respondent sheriff attached to his comment a copy of TCT No. T-6804 showing the registered owners of the property to be as follows: ELEUTERIA CRUZ MARISGA, widow; PRESENTACION MARISGA SUGUITAN, married to Fortunato Suguitan; CON[S]OLACION MARISGA, single; LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA, married to Ricardo Magbanua; FLORA MARISGA MANGAHAS, married to Valentino Mangahas (but separated already for many years); SEVERINO MARISGA, Jr., married to Erlinda Estrilla; FILONILA MARISGA CENDAÑA, married to Javier Cendaña and MAMERTO MARISGA, married to Remedios Pura, all Filipinos, of legal age, and residents of Labangan, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Philippines. [5] He also filed a joint affidavit, dated May 26, 1997, of Severino Marisga, Jr., Mamerto Marisga, Jr., Ma. Victoria Marisga-Sincua (representing the heirs of Filonila Marisga-Cendaña), and Lilibeth Marisga Cendaña in which they state: That, our sister [herein complainant] filed a case before the Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Occ. Mindoro entitled Ludivina Marisga Magbanua versus Sps. Ignacio and Marietta Cantonjos without consulting us first considering that the residential lot subject of the case is a common property: That, likewise, we subsequently filed a case against our sister Ludivina Marisga Magbanua for completely disregarding our rights and interest over the aforesaid property entitled Severino Marisga, Jr., et al., versus Sps. Ludivina Marisga Magbanua for Rec