G.R. No. L-52359 February 24, 1981
Federico Asuncion, Felomena Asuncion, Ceferino Asuncion and Romana Agustin, petitioners, vs. Honorable Andres Plan, Pedro San Pedro, Martin Navarro, Zocimo Beltran, Bernardo Beltran, Pedro Hipolito, Feliciano Mangabat, Paulino Mangabat, Numeriano Asuncion, Zenaida Beltran, Ricardo de la Cruz, Isaiah Vinoya, Jr., Julian Cabiso, Mariano Garcia, Benjamin Olimon and Miguel San Pedro and Pedro Beltran, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, successors-in-interest of Mariano Asuncion, sought to enforce a provision of a court-approved revised partition agreement from Special Civil Action No. BR. 11-8. This agreement obligated the defendant, Pedro Beltran, to deliver possession of 24 hectares of land to Mariano Asuncion. To effectuate this delivery, the petitioners, through Federico Asuncion, entered into lease contracts on January 30, 1974, and April 16, 1974, with the private respondents who were the actual possessors and tillers of the land. These contracts were executed explicitly to implement the writ of execution from the partition case.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a motion in the same partition case for an alias writ of execution to compel the surrender of possession, alleging non-payment of rentals by the lessees. The respondent judge denied this motion. The petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the judge to issue the alias writ.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for an alias writ of execution in the partition case to eject the lessees and deliver possession to the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the respondent judge’s order. The legal logic is twofold. First, the specific obligation from the partition agreement—the delivery of possession by Pedro Beltran—had already been accomplished. This was achieved constructively through the execution of the lease contracts between petitioner Federico Asuncion and the actual cultivators. The petitioners admitted these contracts were made to effect the writ of execution. Therefore, the mandated delivery was a fait accompli, and the court could not order its enforcement anew.
Second, and decisively, an alias writ of execution cannot legally issue against the respondent-lessees in the context of the partition case. The lessees were not parties to the original partition suit between Mariano Asuncion and Pedro Beltran. A writ of execution can only be enforced against parties to the action or their successors-in-interest. The dispute that arose—alleged non-payment of lease rentals and the consequent desire for ejectment—constitutes a separate cause of action entirely alien to the concluded partition proceedings. The proper remedy for the petitioners, if they seek to eject the lessees and recover physical possession, is to institute a separate and appropriate action, such as an unlawful detainer case, against them. The respondent judge correctly denied the motion, as issuing the requested writ would have exceeded the scope and purpose of the finalized partition case.