G.R. No. L-41970. March 25, 1988.
CENON MEDELO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. NATHANAEL M. GOROSPE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch II, City of Iligan, PEDRO ERMAC, and his children ELENA, CARLOS, ANTONIO, LUCIANO, HILARIO, INADALECIO and FRANCISCA, all surnamed ERMAC, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cenon Medelo, a grandchild, filed a petition for the summary settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses Potenciano Ermac and Anastacia Mariquit, consisting of a parcel of land. The court granted the petition and, after no opposition was filed, issued an order for summary settlement. Medelo submitted a project of partition. Private respondent Pedro Ermac, a child of the spouses, then filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming ownership of the lot. The court denied the motion, ruling the proper remedy was a separate suit. Pedro Ermac subsequently filed a separate civil action for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 1564) over the same property.
The lower court approved the project of partition. The Ermacs filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, challenging this approval. The Supreme Court dismissed their petition, ruling that a probate court should proceed with the distribution of a small estate summarily settled, and any adverse claim of ownership must be ventilated in an independent action. For protection, the claimant should annotate a notice of lis pendens on the title. This decision became final.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for execution of the final order approving the project of partition, pending the outcome of the separate civil action for quieting of title.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus and directed the respondent judge to issue the writ of execution. The Court held that the approval of the project of partition had long become final and executory. The pendency of a separate civil action questioning ownership does not constitute a legal obstacle to the execution of a final judgment in the summary settlement proceeding. The Court’s prior decision explicitly mandated that the probate court should proceed with distribution, subject only to the results of the independent suit. The proper safeguard for the claimants is the annotation of a lis pendens, which protects their interest by making any subsequent transaction subject to the outcome of their civil case. The respondent judge’s refusal to order execution, based on the mistaken belief that the civil case was a precondition, was a refusal to perform a purely ministerial duty compelled by the final judgment. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of such a duty. The Court reversed the orders denying execution. No damages were awarded due to lack of proof and absence of showing of vindictiveness or wantonness by the judge.