G.R. No. 151352. July 29, 2005.
LETICIA T. FIDELDIA and PETRA T. FIDELDIA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES RAY and GLORIA SONGCUAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Songcuan filed a complaint for specific performance against Petra Fideldia to compel her to execute a deed of absolute sale over properties covered by a Conditional Contract of Sale. The trial court ruled in favor of the Songcuans, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals and which became final and executory after the Supreme Court denied Petra’s petition. To enforce this final judgment, the Songcuans moved for execution. Petra, however, filed a separate complaint for rescission of the same contract, alleging the Songcuans’ refusal to pay the balance of the purchase price. This rescission case was filed in the same trial court branch that rendered the specific performance decision.
During the pendency of the rescission case, Petra moved to suspend the execution of the final judgment in the specific performance case. The trial court initially granted this motion, deferring the issuance of a writ of execution. The Songcuans challenged this order via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which annulled the trial court’s order deferring execution. Petra and Leticia Fideldia then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in deferring the execution of a final and executory judgment based on the pendency of a subsequent rescission case involving the same parties and contract.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the execution. A final and executory judgment must be executed as a matter of right; its execution is a ministerial duty of the court. The exceptions to this rule are narrow and require circumstances of a special and exceptional nature that render execution unjust, such as supervening events occurring after finality that change the rights of the parties.
The filing of a new action for rescission does not constitute such a supervening event. The rescission complaint was essentially an attempt to re-litigate the very issues conclusively settled in the specific performance case, which already ordered Petra to execute the sale and the Songcuans to pay the balance. The rescission action was a mere collateral attack on the final judgment. The proper remedy for any alleged non-compliance by the Songcuans with their reciprocal obligation to pay was not a separate action but a motion in the very same specific performance case where the court retained control to ensure the proper implementation of its final decision. Therefore, the pendency of the rescission suit did not justify deviating from the mandatory duty to execute the final judgment.