G.R. No. L-30027 July 31, 1969
ESTATE OF JUSTINA SANTOS Y CANON FAUSTINO, represented by the Executor, ANTONIO DE LA FUENTE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. JUDGE JESUS DE VEYRA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and LUI SHE, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in a prior case (G.R. No. L-17587), annulled various contracts between Justina Santos and Wong Heng (later substituted by his widow, Lui She) as an “insidious pattern” to subvert the constitutional ban against alien landholding. The Court ordered the contracts annulled, the land returned to the Estate of Justina Santos, and Wong Heng/Lui She to pay a sum of money with interest. Following this decision, the Estate applied for a writ of execution and demanded that Lui She vacate the premises and pay P15,000 as reasonable monthly rental from the time the decision became final. Lui She did not reply but sent a payment of P3,120 for July 1968, which the Estate accepted as partial payment. Through counsel, Lui She later proposed to pay an increased rental of P5,000 monthly, citing her financial predicament and sublease agreements entered in good faith. The Estate, through its special administrator, replied that its original demand was P15,000, reduced to P9,000, and that any proposal was tentative pending probate court approval. Lui She then paid P5,000 for August and subsequent months, which the Estate accepted, issuing receipts applying the payments to the P15,000 demand, until December 1968 when it refused further payments. The Estate filed for an alias writ of execution after the first writ was returned unsatisfied. The lower court issued the alias writ but later quashed it upon Lui She’s motion, ruling that the Estate’s acceptance of monthly payments of P5,000 constituted a new month-to-month lease contract, implying the Estate’s desistance from enforcing the judgment of ejectment.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in quashing the alias writ of execution, based on its finding that a new month-to-month lease contract was created between the parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus. It ruled that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to execute the final and executory judgment. No new lease contract was created. The correspondence between the parties showed no agreement on a definite rental; the Estate consistently demanded P15,000 (later P9,000) and accepted the P5,000 payments only as partial payments toward that demand, which was a conditional tolerance of the continued occupancy. The Estate’s acceptance of payments, under the circumstances, was merely a means to mitigate damages and did not constitute desistance from enforcing the judgment or a waiver of its right to recover possession. There could be no implied renewal of the void lease contract. The lower court was commanded to issue a writ of execution conformably with the decision in G.R. No. L-17587. The claim for damages for illegal occupancy could be litigated in a separate action.