G.R. No. 99299 August 26, 1993
ROBERTO ULANG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NELIA SALAZAR, respondents.

FACTS

On January 17, 1975, Brigida Julian, mother of petitioner Roberto Ulang, sold a residential lot with two houses in Olongapo City to Valentina Salazar, mother of private respondent Nelia Salazar, via a Deed of Sale With Mortgage to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price (P40,000.00). Petitioner was allowed to stay in one house until the school term ended in 1975, after which he would pay monthly rent. Subsequently, a second sale of the same property was executed by Roberto Ulang, as attorney-in-fact of Brigida Julian, to spouses Casimiro and Nieves Ynares, Jr. This second sale became known to Valentina Salazar through a consignation case (Civil Case No. 1832-0) filed by a tenant, Frank Collins. The court in that case upheld Valentina Salazar’s ownership, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and which became final. Valentina Salazar then filed a recovery of possession case (Civil Case No. 2380-0) against Roberto Ulang. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 01089, set aside the lower court’s decision (which had declared the sale an equitable mortgage) and ordered Ulang to vacate, pay rentals, and pay attorney’s fees. This decision became final and executory on July 4, 1987. A writ of execution was issued. After Valentina Salazar’s death, she was substituted by her heir, Nelia Salazar. Petitioner’s petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 17938) to annul orders related to the writ’s implementation was dismissed. On July 17, 1990, petitioner filed a new suit for foreclosure of mortgage (Civil Case No. 383-0-90) against Nelia Salazar and the Sheriff, pertaining to the same property, and obtained a restraining order. The court denied his prayer for a preliminary injunction. On August 28, 1990, the sheriff evicted petitioner and placed private respondent in possession. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 22944) against the orders denying the injunction, which the Court of Appeals denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the Petition for Certiorari and in ruling that the issuance of the writ of execution was ministerial and that a preliminary injunction was not a proper remedy to stay the execution of a final judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the petition. The Court held that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is a ministerial duty of the trial court. A preliminary injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights and is not a means to stay the execution of a final and executory judgment. The Court found that petitioner’s act of filing the foreclosure suit and seeking injunction was a mere ruse to prevent the enforcement of the final judgment in the recovery of possession case. The ownership of the property had already been settled with finality in prior proceedings. Furthermore, a mandatory injunction will not lie to take property out of the control of the party in possession, which Nelia Salazar had already achieved through the sheriff’s execution. The respondent court did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari.