G.R. No. 147044 ; August 24, 2007
Spouses Norberto Abaga and Calixta Abaga, represented by Attorneys-in-Fact Maria Asuncion Abaga and Simon Cesar Abaga, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Eliseo Panes and Rogelia Panes, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Panes filed a complaint for specific performance against petitioners Spouses Abaga concerning a 255-square meter lot in Makati. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioners to execute a Deed of Assignment for one-half of the lot. This decision was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals and subsequently became final and executory after the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ appeal. Following expropriation of a portion of the lot by the local government, the trial court, upon motion, issued an order directing the petitioners to execute a deed for the remaining 72 square meters due to the respondents.
The petitioners failed to comply with the order. They instead offered to purchase the 72-square meter portion, which the respondents rejected. The respondents then filed a “Motion to Order the Clerk of Court or Any Person To Execute The Deed of Assignment,” which the trial court denied. Dissatisfied, the respondents filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to execute the final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted the writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to ensure the execution of its final and executory judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of the writ of mandamus. The core legal principle is that once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party is entitled to its execution as a matter of right, and the court’s duty to order its execution is ministerial. A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion. The trial court, having rendered a final judgment ordering the petitioners to execute a deed, had the ministerial obligation to see to the fulfillment of that judgment.
Since the petitioners refused to perform the specific act mandated by the final judgment, Rule 39, Section 10 of the Rules of Court expressly provides the remedy. It states that if a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance, and the party fails to comply within the specified time, the court may direct the act to be done by another person appointed by the court at the cost of the disobedient party. The act, when done, has the same effect as if done by the party himself. Therefore, the trial court unlawfully neglected its ministerial duty when it denied the motion to have the Clerk of Court or another person execute the necessary deed. The writ of mandamus was the proper remedy to compel the performance of that clear legal duty.