|
SPOUSES NORBERTO ABAGA and CALIXTA ABAGA,
represented in this appeal by Attorneys-in-Fact MARIA Petitioners, - versus - SPOUSES ELISEO PANES and ROGELIA PANES, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 147044 Present:
PUNO, c.j.,
Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For our resolution is the instant Petition
for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals rendered on
Records
show that on
On
WHEREFORE, there being no valid defense raised to controvert plaintiffs’ claim over one-half of the 255 square meter land in question, the Court hereby renders judgment ordering defendants spouses Norberto & Calixta Abaga to:
1.
Execute a Deed of Assignment in favor of the plaintiffs
of the aforesaid interest in one-half (1/2) of the lot known as No. 20.
2.
Pay the plaintiffs P10,000.00 as and for
attorney’s fees; and
3. Pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 29559, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision, affirmed with
modification the judgment of the RTC in the sense that the award of attorney’s
fees was reduced to only P5,000.00.
Petitioners then filed with
this Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No.
107198.
In a Resolution dated
Upon respondents’ motion,
the trial court issued an Order dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants are hereby ordered to
execute the necessary Deed of Assignment over the 72 square meters of the lot
located at No. 20,
SO ORDERED.
Records show that the local
government of
Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration of the foregoing, but in its Order dated
Thereupon, respondents
filed with the trial court a Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of
Execution which was opposed by petitioners. Shortly thereafter, petitioners
manifested before the trial court that they were willing to purchase the 72
square meters due to respondents at a price of P1,000.00 per square
meter. However, respondents rejected the
offer. Instead, they filed with the trial
court a “Motion to Order the Clerk of Court or Any Person To Execute The Deed
of Assignment.” In its Order dated
Acting on the Motion to Order the Clerk of Court of Any Person To Execute Deed of Assignment filed by plaintiffs thru counsel, the same is hereby DENIED by this Court for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Dissatisfied by this turn
of events, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58941, to compel the trial court to execute the final
and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 89-3269.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for mandamus is hereby GRANTED. The respondent court is hereby ordered to ISSUE the corresponding writ of execution ordering the Clerk of Court or any person to execute, at the respondent’s cost, a Deed of Assignment of one-half of the remaining 144 square meter portion of the property in controversy to the petitioners, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the appellate court in its
Resolution dated
Hence, this petition.
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of
competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to
some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person
requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty
results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or
from operation of law.[2] Section 3, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, reproduced below, governs the issuance of the writ of mandamus
in this jurisdiction.
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. – When any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of
a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
From the foregoing Rule,
there are two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue: (1) when any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. The “duty” mentioned in the first situation is
a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, requiring the exercise of
judgment.[3] The “right” mentioned in the second situation
must be a well-defined, clear and certain, one that has been established by
law.[4] In short, for mandamus to lie,[5]
the duty sought to be compelled to be performed must be a ministerial duty,
not a discretionary duty, and the petitioner must show that he has a
well-defined, clear and certain right. It
thus behooves this Court to determine whether these requirements have been
satisfied.
Anent the existence of a
ministerial duty, we reiterate that when the RTC Decision in Civil Case No.
89-3269 became final and executory, upon respondents’ motion, the RTC issued an
Order on
SEC. 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. – Execution
shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to
appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution
may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment
oblige, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments
or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with
notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
The principle enunciated
in the foregoing Rule is that final and executory judgments must be executed as
a matter of right[6]
and it becomes a ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution
to enforce the judgment, meaning the court has the duty to see to it that
the claim of the prevailing party is fully satisfied from the properties of the
losing party.[7]
We agree with the Court
of Appeals that in denying respondents’ “Motion to Order the Clerk of Court of
Any Person To Execute Deed of Assignment,” the trial court deprived respondents
of a right enjoined by law. Apparently, the trial court lost sight of Section
10 (a), Rule 39, which applies to the present incident, thus:
SEC. 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. –
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts vesting
title. – If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or
personal property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any
other specific act in connection therewith, and the party fails to comply
within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the
cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and
the act when so done shall have like effects as if done by the party. If
real or personal property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu
of directing a conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any party
and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance
executed in due form of law.
In Caluag
v. Pecson,[8] we
ruled that where the judgment directs the losing party to execute a conveyance,
deliver a deed or other documents or to perform any specific act in connection
therewith, these acts can be performed by other persons upon his refusal to
comply. The court shall appoint
another person to perform the act which shall then be done at the expense of
the losing party. The effect shall be as
if it were done by the losing party himself.
Verily, we held that the
Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error of law in issuing the
assailed writ of mandamus, there being a clear showing that the trial
court has a ministerial duty to see to it that its judgment is executed.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 58941 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 24-30. Per Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (retired) and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes.
[2] Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 505, 518, citing United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall (US) 604, 21 L.Ed. 721; Laizure v. Baker, 11 P.2d 560; State ex rel Lyons v. McDowell, 57 A.2d 94; Rader v. Burton, 122 N.E. 2d 856; Board of Managers v. City of Wilmington, 70 S.E. 2d 833.
[3] Samson v. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 117741,
[4] Tam Wing Tak
v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 122452,
[5] Quelnan
v. VHF Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 145911,
[6] Far Eastern Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Vda. de Hernandez, G.R.
No. 30359,
[7] See Bayer Phils. Inc., v.
[8] 82 Phil. 8 (1948).