Lipata v.

Tutaan
G.R. No. L-61643 | 29 September 1983
TOPIC: Contempt | PONENTE: J. Aquino

AUTHOR: TIGLAO
NOTES: Basically, if ayaw niya umalis sa place na pinag
stayhan niya, hindi contempt kundi demolition order. Really
short case.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

Contempt; Writ of execution; Disobedience by judgment debtor of the writ of execution is not contempt of court, and contempt
order issued is void; Sheriffs failure to perform his duty under the Rules.We hold that the contempt order is void. It is not
sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It is not contempt of court for a judgment debtor to disobey the writ of execution. It was the
sheriffs duty to enforce the writ. He did not perform his duty, as ordained in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
FACTS:
This involves a contempt incident against Lipata for failing to obey a writ of execution.
The Decision was decided by Judge Tutaan, wherein he ordered petitioner to deliver to the Sps Agcaoili a two-storey
house
Since the Decision has become final and executory, Sps Agcaoili moved for its execution. The Sheriff reported that they
failed to obey the Decision of Judge Tutaan.
Judge Tutaan sentenced petitioner in contempt in this case.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE(S): W/N the contempt order was valid.
HELD: No.
RATIO:
We hold that the contempt order is void. It is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It is not contempt of court for a judgment
debtor to disobey the writ of execution. It was the sheriffs duty to enforce the writ, He did not perform his duty, as ordained in
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution.The writ of execution must issue in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines from the court in which the judgment or order is entered; must intelligently refer to such judgment or order, stating
the court, province, and municipality where it is of record, and the amount actually due thereon if it be for money; and must
require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed substantially as follows:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(d) If it he for the delivery of the possession of real or personal property, to deliver the possession of the same, describing it, to
the party entitled thereto, and to satisfy any costs, damages, rents, or profits covered by the judgment out of the personal
property of the person against whom it was rendered, and if sufficient personal property cannot be found, then out of the real
property.
Thus, a person cannot be punished for contempt because or his alleged disobedience of an order of court not addressed to him.
A writ of execution issued by a justice of the peace to the sheriff, directing the latter to place the plaintiff in possession of
property held by the defendant, is not an order addressed to the defendant. The delivery of the real property pertains to the
sheriff alone to whom the law entrusts the execution of judgments.
Courts should be slow in jailing people for noncompliance with their orders. Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to
obey should the power be exercised. The power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the

vindictive principle, on the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment (Gamboa vs. Teodoro, 91 Phil. 270; People
vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265).
Refusal of a person to vacate property as demanded by the sheriff enforcing a writ of execution does not constitute contempt.
The landowner should ask the court for a demolition order or removal of improvement of the persons refusing to vacate an
estate subject of an ejectment suit. (Fuentes vs. Leviste, 117 SCRA 958.)