[ G.R. No. L-60. January 30, 1946 ] 75 Phil. 804
[ G.R. No. L-60. January 30, 1946 ]
LORENZA ASICAN, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO QUIRINO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, AND ROMAN CUSTODIO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
MORAN, C.J.:
Seeking to annul on the ground of duress a deed of sale which he executed in favor of Lorenza Asican on March 18, 1944, over a parcel of land situated in the municipality of General Trias, Cavite, Roman Custodio filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cavite on April 3, 1944. On July 10, 1944, the parties submitted a “Stipulation and Petition for Judgment,” and thereupon the court rendered judgment accordingly. The stipulation, in brief, conceded the ownership of the land in question to Lorenza Asican who in turn bound herself to pay a mortgage debt of P3,500 owed by Roman Custodio to a third party, Crispulo Arnaldo.
On April 20, 1945, subsequent to the return of the American forces, Roman Custodio filed another complaint in the same Court of First Instance of Cavite, asking for the annulment of the same deed of sale executed by the parties on March 18, 1944, upon the same ground of duress. On May 8, 1945, defendant Asican filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground of res adjudicata, which was granted by the court, then presided by Honorable Ambrosio Santos. Meanwhile, the herein respondent judge, Honorable Antonio Quirino, was assigned to preside over the Court of First Instance of Cavits, substituting Honorable Ambrosio Santos. Roman Custodio filed a motion for reconsideration of the order issued by Judge Jimbrosio Santos, which was favorably granted by the court, already presided by respondent Judge Antonio Quirino. The order of reconsideration was predicated upon the fact pleaded that in the previous case “the cause of action was tainted by some amount of enemy influence or duress directly or indirectly applied on the plaintiff, in that a Japanese protegee had allegedly threatened to send him to jail if he did not convey the property as requested.” Lorenza Asican filed a motion for reconsideration of this order of Judge Quirino, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari asking for the annulment of Judge Quirino’s order and for the reinstatement of Judge Santos’ order of dismissal.
The respondent court had jurisdiction to act on the motion to reconsider the order of dismissal. Any error committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not an error of jurisdiction which may be reviewed in a petition for certiorari. Jurisdiction should be distinguished from exercise of jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction, in the instant case, is the power to act upon the motion for reconsideration, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decision rendered by the judge. Any error committed in the exercise of such power may be reviewed only by appeal.
Neither is there any grave abuse of discretion in the order issued oy the respondent judge. Although the duress or intimidation alleged to have been exerted by a Japanese protegee is apparently made tc refer to the execution of the contract sought to be annulled, yet the contract is so inseparable from, the compromise agreement into which it was merged that the attack upon the one may be deemed as an attack upon the other. During the oral argument, to clarify this point, members of the Court have made questions to counsel for respondent Roman Custodio who, in answer, announced his intention to attack the compromise agreement directly in an amended complaint.
Our ruling (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L-5, p. 113, ante, promulgated September 17, 1945) to the effect that judicial proceedings during the enemy occupation are valid, does not necessarily exclude an exception on judicial proceedings hall actually under duress or intimidation. We do hot seem convenient, however, to state a final opinion on this matter until all the circumstances proved at the trial are properly before us. Upon the other hand, since the policy of terror and violence followed during the enemy occupation was of public knowlege, we feel it proper to give some latitude to the pleading and proof of particular instances, so that relief, if any, may be granted in the interest of justice.
For all the foregoing, the case is dismissed with costs against petitioner.
Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.