G.R. No. L-13632; July 27, 1960
FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I, BENITO MACROHON, as ex-oficio Sheriff of the Province of Rizal and VICENTE SANTIAGO, respondents.

FACTS

This is an original action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. Petitioners sought to annul an order of execution and a writ of possession issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 7951 (“Vicente Santiago, plaintiff, vs. Sixto de los Angeles et al., defendants”) and to restrain the sheriff from enforcing them. The case was originally decided in favor of the petitioners (defendants below), but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision in a ruling dated June 20, 1957. The appellate court declared respondent Vicente Santiago the legitimate owner of the disputed land, ordered the petitioners to vacate, and condemned them to pay costs and an annual sum from 1940 until possession was delivered (excluding the war years). No motion for reconsideration was filed, and entry of judgment was made on July 30, 1957. This entry of judgment became the subject of a separate certiorari and mandamus action filed by the petitioners in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-13126). Meanwhile, the record was remanded to the court of origin. Upon an ex-parte motion by respondent Santiago (who was then unaware of G.R. No. L-13126), the respondent Judge issued the order of execution and writ of possession on November 22, 1957. The next day, Santiago was placed in possession of the property, though execution of the monetary judgment was held in abeyance after Santiago learned of the pending special civil action. Petitioners moved to recall and quash the order and writ, arguing they were null and void for being issued without hearing and notice, and that the decision was not yet final due to the pending review in G.R. No. L-13126. The lower court denied the motion, holding the judgment was final and executory, its execution was a ministerial duty, and the pending certiorari action (which invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, not appellate review) did not affect finality absent a preliminary injunction from the higher court. Reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

1. May the respondent Judge act upon the motion for execution of the Court of Appeals’ decision without notice to the petitioners and without a hearing?
2. Assuming it may, should the respondent Judge have granted the ex-parte motion for execution considering that the decision was not yet final and executory due to pending certiorari proceedings (G.R. No. L-13126) to annul the entry of judgment, making its finality sub judice?

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction. The issues raised had become moot and academic because the Court had already dismissed the separate certiorari and mandamus proceedings in G.R. No. L-13126. Consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be enforced had become final and executory. Under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the prevailing party (respondent Santiago) is entitled as a matter of right to execution, and it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ. The motion for execution did not call for the adjudication of new and independent matters, and there was no showing of any just or valid cause to oppose its execution. Therefore, there was no necessity to continue the proceedings or disturb the proceedings below. The petition was dismissed without costs.