G.R. No.

L-1403 October 29, 1948

VICENTE CALUAG an !ULIANA GARCIA
vs.
"OTENCIANO "EC#ON an ANGEL $. %O!ICA,!&'e( o) t*e Co&rt o) +,r(t In(tance o) -&.acan,
an LEON ALE!O
+ACT#/
On August 10, 1937, Alejo filed a complaint against Caluag and Garcia for the redemptionof one
half pro indiviso of a par cel of l and i n Gui gui nt o, !ul acan. Af t er t r i al , t he C"#
!ul acanrendered judgment ordering petitioners to e$ecute a deed of sale in favor of "ortunato
Alejo, uponpa%ment &% plaintiff, as purchase price, of the amount of '(,))1. 'etitioners filed an
appeal to theCA &ut it *as denied. Conse+uentl%, Alejo filed a ,otion for -$ecution..hen the petitioners
opposed, Alejo filed &efore C"# a petition for contempt and it *as granted&% the respondent. A
petition for certiorari *as filed against the respondent judge, allegedl% acted*ithout or in e$cess
of the jurisdiction of the court in rendering the resolution *hich declares the petitioners
guilt% of contempt of court for not compl%ing or performing its prior order re+uiring thepetitioners
to e$ecute a deed of sale in favor of plaintiff over onehalf of the land pro indiviso
in+uestion. /he petitioners in support of the present petition for certiorari, alleged other ( grounds,
to*it0 112 that plaintiff3 s action a&ated or *as e$tinguished upon the death of the plaintiff
"ortunato Alejo, &ecause his right of legal redemption *as a personal one, and therefore not
transfera&le to his successor s i n i nt er est 4 and 1 (2 t hat , even assumi ng t hat i t i s a
per sonal one and t heref or e transfera&le, his successors in interest have failed to secure the
su&stitution of said deceased &% his legal representative under section 17, 5ule 3.
I##UE/
.O6 respondent 7udge Angel ,ojica acted *ithout jurisdiction in proceeding against anddeclaring
the petitioners guilt% of contempt.
$EL0/
8es
RATIO/
#t is *ell settled that jurisdiction of the su&ject matter of a particular case is something morethan
the general po*er conferred &% la* upon a court to ta9e cogni:ance of cases of the general class
to *hich the particular case &elongs. /he respondent 7udge ,ojica acted not onl%
*ithout jurisdiction in proceeding against and declaring the petitioners guilt% of contempt, &ut also
in e$cessof jurisdiction in ordering the confinement of the petitioners, &ecause it had no po*er to impose
suchpuni shment upon t he l at t er. /he r espondent j udge has no po*er under t he
l a* t o or der t heconfinement of the petitioners until the% have compiled *ith the order of the court. A
*rong decision made *ithin the limits of the court3s authorit% is erroneous and ma% &e correctedon
appeal or other direct revie*, &ut a *rong, or for that matter a correct, decision is void, and ma%&e
set aside either directl% or collaterall%, *here the court e$ceeds its jurisdiction and
po*er inrendering it. ;ence though the court has ac+uired jurisdiction over the su&ject
matter and thepar t i cul ar case has &een su&mi t t ed pr operl % t o i t f or hear i ng and
deci si on, i t *i l l over st ep i t s jurisdiction if it renders a judgment which it has no power
under the law to render.