G.R. No. L-20570 January 27, 1967
ESTEFANIA VDA. DE MIRANDA, SOLEDAD MIRANDA, PERFECTA MIRANDA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. MACAPATON ABBAS, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Davao; THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF DAVAO, SALINANGAN MANOBA, MOYANG MANOBA ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Suit was commenced on October 15, 1956 by Marcelina Salinangan, Moyang Senduyan, Cellona Abayon and Juaning, all surnamed Manoba (heirs of Campa-an), against Sebastian Miranda in the Court of First Instance of Davao to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land covered by OCT 1652, plus damages. The plaintiffs alleged they were the absolute co-owners and that Miranda, through misrepresentations, obtained their documents and secured a certificate of title in his name. Miranda, in his answer, claimed he acquired the land in an auction sale conducted by the provincial treasurer on May 13, 1938, and had been in continuous possession since. After 17 postponements over almost four years, the case was set for hearing on September 30, 1960. On that date, plaintiffs’ counsel appeared, but neither Miranda nor his counsel was present. The trial judge, after verifying that defendant’s counsel was duly notified and waiting for about two hours, allowed the plaintiffs to present their evidence ex parte. On December 21, 1960, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering Miranda to vacate the land, deliver possession and improvements, and pay P5,000 in damages with interest and costs. Miranda’s counsel received a copy of the decision on January 20, 1961, filed a motion for reconsideration on February 3, 1961, which was denied on May 26, 1961 (notice received June 6, 1961). The court ordered issuance of a writ of execution on July 17, 1961. On July 26, 1961, Miranda’s counsel informed the court that Miranda had died on February 21, 1961, leaving his wife and children as heirs, and submitted to the court’s discretion. A writ of execution was issued on August 11, 1961, served on Miranda’s wife, and entry of judgment was made on August 16, 1961. On August 30, 1961, the court ordered that the writ may be enforced against Miranda’s successor-in-interest (heirs) and denied a petition for relief. No appeal was taken by Miranda’s heirs. Instead, on April 5, 1962, they filed a petition with the Supreme Court to annul all proceedings below.

ISSUE

1. Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte on September 30, 1960, without reserving the defendant’s right to present evidence later?
2. Was the order of July 17, 1961 directing issuance of a writ of execution proper and legal under Section 7, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, considering entry of judgment was made after the defendant’s death?

RULING

1. No. The trial judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The matter of continuances is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The record showed defendant’s counsel was duly notified of the September 30, 1960 hearing and did not ask for a postponement. The judge waited for two hours for his appearance before allowing ex parte presentation of evidence. The court did not declare the defendant in default but rendered judgment on the evidence presented. The failure of the defendant to be present at the hearing deprived him of his right to present evidence.
2. Yes. The writ of execution was proper. Section 7, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court provides that where a party dies after the entry of judgment, execution may be enforced against his executor, administrator, or successor-in-interest. This provision does not invalidate a writ of execution issued after a party’s death but before entry of judgment; it merely indicates against whom the writ may be enforced. In this case, judgment was rendered on December 21, 1960, before Miranda’s death on February 21, 1961. Neither Miranda nor his heirs appealed, making the judgment final. The writ of execution issued as a matter of course. The court’s order of August 30, 1961 correctly commanded enforcement against Miranda’s successor-in-interest, as no executor or administrator had been appointed. The fact that the writ was issued on August 11, 1961, five days before the physical entry of judgment on August 16, 1961, was a non-prejudicial error. Accordingly, the petition was denied.