G.R. No. L-19498; February 26, 1965
VICENTE ABELLANA, CATALINA ABELLANA, CORNELIO ABELLANA, FRANCISCO ABELLANA and the HEIRS OF DAMASO ABELLANA, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE HON. TERESO M. DOSDOS, Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Cebu and CONSTANCIO ALCOBER, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners (the Abellanas) filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. R-5912) in the Municipal Court of Cebu against respondents Constancio Alcober and his wife, concerning a 200-square-meter portion of Lot No. 5600. Intervenor Agripina Abarquez claimed ownership of that portion, but the court found her claim untrue. The court determined that the Alcobers leased the land from Abarquez in good faith, paid her P80.00 for four years of rent, and built a house on the property. The municipal court, presided by respondent Judge Tereso M. Dosdos, rendered a decision on November 29, 1960, which became final on December 22, 1960. The decision ordered a five-year lease between the parties starting January 1, 1961, with a yearly rental of P50.00. It allowed a deduction of P20.00 annually for the first four years due to the Alcobers’ prior payment to Abarquez (who was ordered to pay the Abellanas). The Alcobers were to pay the net P30.00 during the first week of January each year from 1961 to 1964, and P50.00 in 1965. The decision stipulated: “If they fail to pay the said sums as above-stated, then execution shall issue against them to vacate the premises.” The Alcobers failed to pay the P30.00 rent for 1961 during the first week of January. The Abellanas filed a motion for execution on January 19, 1961. The Alcobers deposited the P30.00 in court on January 30, 1961. The municipal court denied the motion for execution on January 31, 1961, and also denied a motion for reconsideration on February 13, 1961, reasoning that the delay was not voluntary but due to ongoing negotiations initiated by the Abellanas for a barter of properties. The Abellanas then filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to compel respondent Judge to execute the decision. The Court of First Instance granted the writ, applying Rule 72, Section 8 of the old Rules of Court on execution pending appeal. Respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge’s duty to issue a writ of execution under the final judgment in the ejectment case was ministerial and subject to compulsion by mandamus, given the finding that the defendants’ delay in rental payment was due to negotiations initiated by the plaintiffs.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that the duty to execute the judgment was not ministerial under the circumstances. The Court found that the Court of First Instance erroneously applied Rule 72, Section 8, as the case was an original mandamus action, not an appeal from the ejectment decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that after a judgment becomes final, a court may admit evidence of new facts or circumstances that affect the parties’ rights and may suspend execution accordingly. Here, the municipal court’s order of February 13, 1961, which was part of the stipulation of facts in the mandamus case, found that the delay in payment was due to negotiations for a barter initiated by the Abellanas, making the delay not voluntary. This factual finding, uncontested by appeal in the ejectment case, justified the municipal court’s discretion to deny immediate execution. Therefore, mandamus did not lie to compel a purely ministerial duty, as the respondent Judge exercised judicial discretion based on supervening events. Costs were imposed on petitioners-appellees.