G.R. No. 79416 September 5, 1989
ROSALINA BONIFACIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Olimpio Bonifacio filed an agrarian case in 1968 to eject respondent Pastora San Miguel, his agricultural lessee, from his land based on his right of personal cultivation under the Agricultural Land Reform Code. The Court of Agrarian Relations ruled in his favor in 1970. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and later by the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal to the Supreme Court, Olimpio Bonifacio died in 1983. No formal notice of his death was given to the Court, and thus no substitution of his heirs was ordered. Upon finality of the judgment, his heirs (petitioners) moved for execution. The sheriff partially delivered possession, except for a portion occupied by San Miguel’s house. San Miguel moved to quash the writ, and the Regional Trial Court granted her motion, declaring the implementation null and void. The trial court ruled the action was purely personal to Olimpio and did not survive his death.

ISSUE

Whether the favorable judgment in an agrarian ejectment case, obtained by the deceased landowner, survives his death and can be enforced by his compulsory heirs.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the RTC resolution, and ordered immediate execution. The Court clarified that while the case was a special agrarian ejectment proceeding, it was not an action that abated upon the death of a party. The general rule is that ejectment cases survive death. The right to eject based on “personal cultivation” under the law was not an exclusively personal right that died with the landowner. The term “personal cultivation” did not restrict the right to the landowner alone but included cultivation by the immediate family or under his direct supervision. Therefore, the cause of action and the judgment in favor of Olimpio constituted property rights that passed to his heirs by succession. The failure to formally substitute the heirs after Olimpio’s death did not nullify the proceedings or the judgment, as the court was not notified. The rights had already vested prior to his death. Furthermore, the subsequent laws (R.A. 6389 and P.D. 27) cited by San Miguel to prohibit execution could not be applied retroactively to nullify a final and executory judgment. The trial court thus committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ of execution.