Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


ANTONIO LAYUG - In 1991, respondent judge issued an order directing Deputy

G.R. No. 104846 | 23 November 1995 Provincial Sheriff Salcedo “to refrain from disposing plaintiff
of the possession of the property until ordered by court
- A petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul the
DOCTRINE: orders of respondent Judge Federico Noel filed by
respondent Layug alleging grave abuse of discretion
FACTS: amounting to lack of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of
- In 1978, Respondent Antonio Layug entered into a contract Civil Case No. II-1408 and in issuing the questioned
with petitioner Gabuya for the purchase of 12 lots situated in orders.
Iligan City for the price of P120,000.00 payable in 3 yearly
installments. ISSUE:
- Respondent failed to pay the last installment.
- Formal demands were made but respondent failed to pay HELD:
- Petitioner brought a suit for annulment of contract and for the
recovery of damages against Layug in the CFI (now RTC) There is obvious merit in the petition. The final judgment of this
- RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Court in G.R. No. 75364 promulgated 23 November 1988
- Respondent appealed to the CA involving the same parties, facts and issues constitutes an
- 1985, CA affirmed judgment and ordered (1) rescission of absolute bar to Civil Case No. II-1408 now pending with the
the conditional sale (2) declared as rentals all payments Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Br. 2. It is final as to all
made by respondent (3) ordered respondent to vacate and
claims and demands of petitioner Gabuya and respondent Layug
deliver the possession to petitioner (4) ordered respondent to
with regard to the twelve (12) lots in Iligan City subject matter of
pay petitioner attorney’s fees
- SC affirmed CA’s decision but modified to the affect that the
the contract of sale ordered cancelled by this Court. This
cancellation should be effective and fully operative only upon judgment binds the parties not only as to every matter offered and
payment of the “cash surrender value” of his payments in the received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any
sum of P40,000.00 other admissible matter which might have been offered for that
- 1989, The SC decision became final and executor. purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in
- A writ of execution was issued by the trial court. And a that case.
certificate of turnover was issued by the Sheriff.
- Respondent Layug filed a petition for certiorari to the CA – In the case before us, the claim for reimbursement of the value of
dismissed. improvements introduced by respondent Layug on the property
- The sheriff submitted to the trial court a return of the writ of subject of the contract of sale should have been raised by him as
execution with recommendation that the buildings of a counterclaim in the complaint for annulment of contract before
respondent found in the property be demolished. the trial court in the first case instituted by petitioner Gabuya. The
- Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance with failure of respondent Layug to raise these matters therein
prayer for temporary restraining order against petitioner precludes the re-litigation of the same facts in a separate
seeking reimbursement for the value of the improvements, complaint. It has been ruled that when defendants are sued for
buildings, and materials.
recovery of a tract of land they ought to have presented a
counterclaim for the value of the improvements thereon and the
amount of damages suffered by them because the claim for such
improvements and indemnity is necessarily connected with the
suit for the restitution or recovery of land claimed to have been
improved, and with the result of the execution of the judgment
awarding recovery.

The petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders of respondent

judge dated 16 October 1991 and 11 March 1992 are

Respondent judge, or whoever may now be acting in his behalf or

assigned to the case, is directed to pursue immediately the
implementation of the writ of execution issued on 31 May 1989 to
satisfy the judgment that has long become final and executory.