G.R. No. 79425 , April 17, 1989
Cresenciana Atun Esquivel and Lamberto Esquivel, petitioners, vs. Hon. Angel M. Alegre, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch II, 5th Judicial Region, Legaspi City and Teotimo Alaurin, Visitacion Magno & Sps. Wilfredo Encinas & Patrocinia Encinas, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, the Esquivels, previously secured a final and executory ejectment judgment against the original respondents, Alaurin and Magno, over a parcel of land. Before execution, the Esquivels filed a separate action for reconveyance and nullity of judgment (Civil Case No. 4883). During the pendency of a related certiorari case (G.R. No. L-38826), the parties submitted a Joint Manifestation to the Supreme Court, agreeing that Civil Case No. 4883 would be tried on the merits. They stipulated that the winning party in that case would be entitled to possession. The Supreme Court approved this agreement and ordered the trial court to decide the case.
The trial court in Civil Case No. 4883 rendered a decision dismissing the Esquivels’ complaint and dissolving a preliminary injunction. The Esquivels appealed this decision. While the appeal was pending, they filed a supplemental complaint impleading the spouses Encinas as successors-in-interest of the original defendants. The trial court issued a supplemental decision stating that the Encina spouses were bound by the outcome of the appealed case. The Esquivels’ appeal ultimately failed, and the original decision in Civil Case No. 4883 became final and executory on October 6, 1986.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to take possession of the property after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 4883.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the ministerial duty of execution. The core ruling of the Supreme Court in the antecedent case (G.R. No. L-38826), which incorporated the parties’ Joint Manifestation, was that possession would follow the outcome of Civil Case No. 4883. The trial court’s decision in that case dismissed the Esquivels’ claim. This decision became final after the Esquivels exhausted their appeals.
Upon finality, the prevailing party—the respondents—were entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, and its issuance is a ministerial duty of the court. The writ must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the final judgment. The final judgment here dismissed the Esquivels’ action, meaning the respondents (Alaurin, Magno, and their successors, the Encina spouses) were the rightful parties entitled to possession under the terms of the Supreme Court-approved agreement. Since the respondents were already in actual possession of the property in accordance with this final judgment, there was no need for the issuance of a new writ of execution to place them in possession. The respondent judge’s orders, which denied the Esquivels’ motion to take possession, were merely a correct adherence to the final and executory decision. Therefore, his actions were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.