Albetz v. CA (1977)

ALBETZ V. CA (1977)

No. L-32570
Feb. 28, 1977

PARTIES:

·       Petitioner: Albetz Investments, Inc.

·       Respondent:

o   CA,

o   Hon. Jose Leuterio (Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 11)

o   Ricardo Calma, Vicenta D. Calma (spouses)

o   Francisco Umengan, Maria Umengan (spouses)

·       Petition for certiorari of the decision of the CA

BACKGROUND

·       Calma spouses were lessees of that lot owned by lessor Albetz Investment, Inc.

·       Albetz Investments needed the lot to construct new building and demanded delivery of the lot.

·       Upon the refusal of the Calma spouses, Albetz Investment brought an action of unlawful detainer against Calma.

o   Municipal Court rendered judgment by default ordering Calma and all persons claiming under her to vacate the premises and to pay the corresponding rentals; Albetz filed motion for execution (granted by Municipal Court with writ of execution)

o   July 1,1964 - commanding Sheriff to remove the defendants in the premises and to collect damages.

·       Sept. 7, 1964 - Vicente Calma filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction (Court of First Instance)

o   Sept. 8, 1964 - Counsel for Calma filed motion for unlawful detainer case

·       Denied by Court of First Instance; Vicente Calma appealed to the Supreme Court Dec. 19, 1964;  Albetz Investments filed motion for demolition on Feb. 9

·       April 19 - Municipal Judge granted 30 days from the receipt thereof to vacate and remove her house on the premises, otherwise a demolition order would issue

·       June 21, 1965 - Court authorized/ordered Sheriff to destroy, demolish or remove the house constructed by Calma

·       Appeal of certiorari case was dismissed by the SC

o   Calma spouses filed an action for specific performance with injunction against Albetz prayer that the lot be sold to them at a reasonable price

·       Dimissed on Feb. 15, 1966

·       Feb. 19 - Sheriff demolished the house of the spouses without any new writ or order for demolition having been issued by the Municipal Court and only on the strength of the order of June 21, 1965.

·       Calma filed case against Albetz alleging that the demolition was illegal since it was made eight months after issuance of the demolition order; spouses were not notified of the demolition the manner it was carried out was indiscriminate, causing damage to their personal properties (filed together Umengan, occupants of its ground floor

o   Court rendered judgment in favor of Calma; ordering Albetz to pay damages in specified amounts including attorney's fees and costs of suit.

·       Albetz appealed to CA; CA affirmed lower court's decision in toto.

o   CA: not disputed that plaintiffs were only notified of the demolition order on the day the Sheriff appeared." Demolition had 3 laborers

·       Albetz filed SC petition alleging both CA and trial court erred in declaring that an order of demolition, which was not implemented within 60 days becomes a nullity.

ISSUE:

·       W/N lower courts erred in awarding damages in favor of Calma.

JUDGMENT:

·       Appealed decision AFFIRMED, without pronouncement to the costs.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       Calma spouses could not have been unaware of the order of demolition (filed on Feb. 9, 1965); it was duly opposed by the Calma spouses on April 29, 1965

·       Calma spouses were given more than sufficient time to comply with the order of the Municipal Court to remove voluntarily their house from the premises.

·       It was not necessary to await order of demolition to be served upon the spouses before carrying out the writ of demolition since the demolition order was not appealable and could be served on the adverse party.

·       Art. 19: demolition complained of in the case at bar was not carried out in a manner consistent with justice and good faith.

o   Demolition was done in a swift, unconscious able manner, giving the occupants of the house no time to remove all their belongings therefrom

o   Albetz Investment had the legal right to surrender to them of the parcel of land which could only be achieved through demolition, but such right should not have been exercised in such a manner to unduly prejudice its owners.

o   Sheriff did not instruct/allow said occupants to remove their personal properties (no damage would have been mentioned if this had happened)