GR L 1457; (January, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1457; January 28, 1948
CO TIAC, petitioner, vs. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, Judge of First Instance of Manila, JOAQUIN GARCIA, Sheriff of City of Manila, and DOMINGO LAO, respondents.
FACTS
Domingo Lao filed an unlawful detainer case in the municipal court against Co Kay concerning a warehouse. Judgment was rendered for Lao, and upon appeal to the Court of First Instance, the parties stipulated that Co Kay would vacate the premises by August 31, 1946. Co Kay failed to vacate, and Lao moved for execution. The sheriff discovered the warehouse subject of the suit was actually No. 534 Elcano Street, not No. 528 as stated in the pleadings. The court amended the judgment to correct this clerical error. Co Tiac, the actual occupant of No. 534, filed a motion to quash the execution, claiming he was not a party to the case, had leased the property from another person for ten years, and only learned of the case when the sheriff inspected the premises. The court denied his motion, ruling he had no personality to intervene as he was not a party to the case. Co Tiac filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying Co Tiac’s motion to quash the writ of execution.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction or abuse his discretion. In an unlawful detainer action, the suit is properly brought against the person in possession at the commencement of the action. Co Kay was the defendant in possession when the suit was filed. The judgment and execution were effective against him. Co Tiac’s omission from the complaint did not invalidate the execution. The general rule is that an ejectment action is maintainable only against those in possession at the start of the suit, and the judgment binds the defendant and those acting under him. Since Co Tiac claimed possession under a different title, not as a privy to Co Kay, the proper remedy for him was a separate action to assert his rights, not intervention in the already final and executory judgment. The amendment of the judgment to correct the street number was a permissible correction of a clerical error.
AI Generated by Armztrong.