G.R. No. L-17132, May 31, 1965
Juan Benemerito and Solomon Benemerito, petitioners-appellants, vs. Petronila Constanilla, Julita de Raboy and Marcial Ugbinar, Justice of the Peace of Badian, Cebu, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

1. In Civil Case No. 15 for forcible entry before the Justice of the Peace Court of Badian, Cebu, judgment was rendered on February 5, 1951 in favor of plaintiffs Petronila Constanilla and Julita de Raboy against defendants Juan Benemerito and Solomon Benemerito. The judgment ordered the defendants to vacate the land and pay monthly rents and damages.
2. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, filed a supersedeas bond, and regularly paid the monthly rents pending appeal.
3. Pending appeal, the parties entered into an amicable settlement. On July 20, 1956, they filed a joint motion in the CFI asking “to have the appeal of the above-entitled case dismissed.” On the same day, the CFI issued an order dismissing the appeal and directing the return of the case to the Justice of the Peace Court for execution of its judgment.
4. Upon receipt of the case, Justice of the Peace Marcial Ugbinar issued a writ of execution on December 13, 1956. The defendants refused to vacate and filed a motion to quash the writ on January 2, 1957, alleging that the judgment had been novated by the amicable settlement, which allowed them to remain in possession until ownership could be litigated. The motion was denied on March 14, 1957.
5. The defendants (petitioners) then filed a petition for certiorari in the CFI seeking annulment of the writ of execution and the order denying their motion to quash. The CFI denied the writ, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Justice of the Peace acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution and the order denying the motion to quash.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s decision, holding that the respondent Justice of the Peace did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
1. The dismissal of the appeal in the CFI, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, revived the original judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court under Section 9, Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court. As if no appeal had been perfected, execution issued as a matter of right under Section 1, Rule 39.
2. The CFI’s order directing return of the case for execution was ministerial, and the Justice of the Peace had no discretion to deny execution or quash the writ afterward.
3. The petitioners’ claim regarding the amicable settlement allowing them to remain in possession was immaterial. Their remedy was to seek reconsideration or modification of the CFI’s order of dismissal to reflect the true agreement, but they failed to do so, and the order became final. The Justice of the Peace Court could not modify that order and was bound to issue execution.
Costs were imposed on the appellants.