CORAZON GOZON y SRA.

DE GOZON (ROSARIO LAM)

vs.
M. L. DE LA ROSA, Juez de Primera Instancia de Manila, PURA KALAW
LEDESMA, y su esposo RAFAEL LEDESMA
G.R. NO.
: L-906
DATE
: January 30, 1947
PONENTE : PABLO, J.
CONCURRED
: Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones y Tuason,
MM.
DISSENTED :
FACTS:
Judge De la Rosa issued a ruling, which provides, among others, that: 1.
Judgment is given under requested in the application, but that it should not be executed
until after the May 31, 1946, provided that the defendant pay rent for within the first ten
days of each month; 2. deposit rents demanded for this cause, which include up to
October 1945, to be delivered to the applicant or his attorney, 3. that rents for the month
of November and the following months will be paid to the defendant upon demand.
Upon expiration of the period specified in the decision to vacate the property, the
defendant requested an extension until June 15, 1946. With the consent of the
applicant, the Court granted the petition. Upon the expiration of the second term, the
defendant still did not vacate the farm. At the request of the applicant, the judge issued
the order for execution. By becoming the property to perform the execution, the sheriff
found Corazon Gozon and Rosario Lam who are the tenants claimed that Pura Kalaw
Ledesma who did not want to leave the farm because they were not parties to the case
against Amparo Gozon. The sheriff reported this to court. Corazon and Rosario Lam
Gozon were cited by the Court to appear to explain their reasons why they should not
be ordered to vacate the property. The courts jurisdiction was challenged.
After due investigation, the Honorable Judge Rose issued its order of August 9,
1946 ordering them to vacate the property on or before August 31, 1946. This is the
order that the appellants challenge of void and of no value.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the eviction order is enforceable upon Corazon and Rosario Lam
Gozon
HELD:
No. Judgment rendered in actions in personam, as in the instant case, are only
enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest, but not against
strangers thereto. There may be cases when the current possessor may be claimed to
be privy to any of the parties to the action, or his bona fide possession may be disputed,
or where it is alleged, as in the instant case, that has been taken possession such with
the defeated in connivance with a view to litigant frustrating the judgment. In any of
these events, the proper procedure would be to order a hearing on the matter of

possession and to deny such accesses or to the enforcement of a writ of possession as

the filing Shall warrant.