GR L 1372; (November, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1372. November 29, 1949.
ALIPIO VILLONES, AURELIO VILLONES and CATALINA VILLONES, petitioners, vs. MARIANO NABLE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and CONRADO PENSON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners sued respondent Conrado Penson for specific performance of a contract to sell one-half of his residential land. The complaint described the land ambiguously, stating it was “about 500 square meters,” “one-half of the land declared under tax No. 18229,” but with boundaries suggesting it was one-half of Penson’s entire titled lot of 4,715 square meters. The trial court rendered a judgment on the pleadings ordering Penson to accept payment and execute a deed of conveyance. After the judgment became final, Penson filed a motion to execute, offering to convey one-half of the lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 18229 (which was 1,000 sq m, so one-half is 500 sq m). Petitioners opposed, claiming they bought one-half of the entire 4,715 sq m lot. The respondent judge denied petitioners’ request for a hearing or ocular inspection to resolve the ambiguity, holding it would reopen the final judgment. Petitioners then filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to conduct an investigation to ascertain the identity of the land subject of the final judgment for purposes of its execution.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, treating it as one for mandamus. The Court held that where a judgment is ambiguous and cannot be executed without clarification, the court may conduct an investigation in aid of execution under Section 2(c), Rule 34 of the Rules of Court. This investigation is not a reopening of the case or a re-examination of issues already decided (such as the existence of the contract of sale), but a supplementary proceeding to determine the specific identity of the property adjudged, based on the pleadings and, if necessary, extrinsic evidence. The conflicting descriptions in the complaint created an ambiguity that must be resolved to carry the judgment into effect. The respondent judge was ordered to conduct such an investigation, which may include a hearing or an ocular inspection, to ascertain the exact land sold to the petitioners. (Note: A dissenting opinion argued that the petitioners were bound by the description in their complaint and the final judgment, which referred to Tax Declaration No. 18229, and that any investigation should be limited to determining the boundaries of one-half of that specific lot.)
AI Generated by Armztrong.