You are on page 1of 2

VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA and NICETAS HENSON, petitioners, vs. PASTOR D.

AGO,
LOURDES YU AGO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS:
In a decision of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in a replevin case, Pastor Ago was ordered to deliver personal properties or pay
sums of money to the plaintiffs therein. The case was consequently remanded to the trial
court for execution, levy was made on Ago's house and lots, and auction was scheduled.
Ago moved to stop the sale, failing in which he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals which dismissed it. This dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Efforts
to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction having failed, the sheriff sold the house and lots
and awarded them to herein petitioners as highest bidders. As Ago failed to redeem, a
final deed of sale was executed in favor of the vendee in whose favor the Court of First
Instance of Manila issued writ of possession to the properties.
Subsequently, Ago, joined by his wife, filed with the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City, an action to annul the sheriff's sale on the ground that the obligation upon which
judgment had been rendered against Ago was his personal obligation that could not
legally affect his wife's half-share in their conjugal house and lots levied upon and sold
for the satisfaction of the judgment. The Quezon City court issued an ex parte writ of
preliminary injunction restraining the registration of the final deeds of sale and the carrying
out of any writ of possession. For a couple of times this was lifted and then restored,
before the said court finally lifted the restraining order. While these processes were being
pursued, Ago filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying
for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the writ of
possession. The same was dismissed for lack of merit and so with a similar petition in the
Court of Appeals. The dismissal by the Court of Appeals was the subject of another
petition in the Supreme Court which was likewise dismissed.
Finally, the spouses succeeded in having another petition of the same nature given due
course by the Court of Appeals which granted, and later made permanent, the preliminary
injunction from enforcement of the writ of possession on and ejectment from the one-half
share in the properties involved belonging to the wife. This decision of the Court of
Appeals is the subject of the instant petition.
ISSUE: MISUSE LEGAL REMEDIES/PROCESSES
HELD:
; WIFE'S HALF-SHARE IN THE PROPERTY LEVIED A MERE EXPECTANCY;
INJUNCTION NOT AVAILABLE TO PROTECT A RIGHT NOT IN ESSE. — The Court of
Appeals decision enjoined the enforcement of the writ of possession to and ejectment
from the one-half share in the properties involved belonging to the wife of the judgment
debtor. HELD: That half-share is not in esse, but is merely an inchoate interest, a mere
expectancy, constituting neither legal nor equitable estate, and will ripen into title only
when upon liquidation and settlement there appears to be assets of the community. The
decision sets at naught the well-settled rule that injunction does not issue to protect a
right not in esse and which may never arise.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; MISUSE OF LEGAL REMEDIES TO THWART SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, CONDEMNABLE. — The attitude of respondents and their counsel of
maneuvering for fourteen years to doggedly resist execution of the judgment thru manifold
tactics in and from one court to another is to be condemned because far from viewing
courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, they tried to use them to subvert the
very ends of justice.
6. ATTORNEYS; CONDUCT; LAWYER'S INSISTENCE DESPITE PATENT FUTILITY
OF HIS CLIENT'S POSITION, A DISREGARD OF HIS MISSION AS AN OFFICER OF
THE COURT. — Where counsel has allowed himself to become an instigator of
controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator
for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true
exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice, he has forgotten his sacred mission
as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court.