G.R. No. 187021 ; January 25, 2012
DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, SPOUSES SATURNINA BARIA & TOMAS CO and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, METRO MANILA, DISTRICT II, Respondents.

FACTS

In 1973, petitioner Douglas F. Anama and respondent Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) entered into a “Contract to Buy” a property on installment. Anama defaulted, PSB rescinded the contract, and later sold the property to respondent Spouses Saturnina Baria and Tomas Co, who obtained title. Anama filed a complaint for nullity of the deed of sale, cancellation of title, and specific performance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed his complaint on August 21, 1991, upholding the validity of the sale. This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals and, ultimately, by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated January 29, 2004, which became final and executory on July 12, 2004. Subsequently, the Spouses Co moved for the issuance of a writ of execution before the RTC. Anama opposed, arguing the motion was fatally defective for lack of a proper notice of hearing (as it was addressed to the Clerk of Court, not the parties) and for lacking a mandatory affidavit of service, rendering it a mere scrap of paper. The RTC granted the motion for execution in an Order dated November 25, 2005. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Order, ruling that execution of a final judgment is a matter of right and the court’s duty is ministerial; thus, the motion could be acted upon ex parte, excusing strict compliance with notice and hearing requirements. The CA also found no denial of due process as Anama was properly notified, and deemed his objections dilatory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s grant of the motion for issuance of a writ of execution despite alleged procedural defects in the motion (specifically, a notice of hearing addressed to the Clerk of Court and lack of an affidavit of service).

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court ruled that while the Rules of Court require a notice of hearing in a motion to be addressed to all parties concerned and an affidavit of service to be attached, these requirements are not absolute. A motion for execution of a final and executory judgment is a special proceeding wherein the court’s duty to issue the writ is ministerial. Consequently, such a motion can be acted upon by the court ex parte, and strict compliance with the rules on notice and hearing is not required. The Court emphasized that the core issue of the validity of the sale had been conclusively settled with finality. The Spouses Co’s act of serving the motion via personal delivery to Anama’s counsel of record (who had not formally withdrawn) substantially complied with the rules and satisfied due process. The Court rejected Anama’s arguments as dilatory tactics designed to frustrate the execution of a long-final judgment. It also declined to revisit his ancillary claim of “dagdag-bawas” or falsification of the TSN by PSB, as the merits of the case had been laid to rest by the final and executory Supreme Court Decision of January 29, 2004. The Court held that technicalities must yield to the higher interest of justice, and execution must issue as a matter of right to end the litigation.