GR 140959; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140959 , December 21, 2004
Ana Rubenito and Baby Macaya, petitioners, vs. Lolita Lagata, Rolando Bincang, Hon. Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 75, Marikina City, and Sheriff Edwin C. Garcia, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the registered owners of a parcel of land in Marikina City, filed a barangay complaint for ejectment against petitioners in June 1991. The parties executed a “Kasunduang Pag-aayos” (amicable settlement) before the Punong Barangay, wherein petitioners acknowledged the respondents’ ownership and bound themselves to vacate the premises by December 11, 1991. Petitioners failed to vacate. Consequently, respondents filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) for the execution of this barangay compromise agreement.
The MeTC and the Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the complaint, treating it as an ordinary ejectment case requiring a prior demand to vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed these decisions, ruling that the action was not for ejectment but for the execution of an amicable settlement, which under the law has the force and effect of a final judgment. The CA directed the MeTC to execute the settlement. The MeTC subsequently issued a Writ of Execution, a Notice to Vacate, and later an Order of Demolition.
ISSUE
Whether the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Writ of Execution, Notice to Vacate, and Order of Demolition despite petitioners’ claim of non-receipt of the CA decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court treated the petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, as it assailed jurisdictional errors. The legal logic centered on the finality and executory nature of the barangay amicable settlement and the CA decision affirming its execution.
First, a barangay amicable settlement, once not repudiated, has the force and effect of a final judgment. The “Kasunduang Pag-aayos” was a binding compromise where petitioners voluntarily agreed to vacate. The action to enforce it prescribes in ten years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, and the complaint was timely filed. Second, the petitioners’ claim of non-receipt of the CA decision was unsubstantiated. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands, and petitioners failed to present proof that their counsel of record did not receive it. The CA decision became final and executory upon the lapse of the period for appeal without such appeal being taken. Therefore, the MeTC’s issuance of the writs was a ministerial duty to enforce a final judgment, not a discretionary act subject to grave abuse. The Court emphasized the policy against delaying the execution of final judgments and condemned tactics that deprive prevailing parties of the fruits of their victory.