G.R. No. L-26112 June 30, 1967
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MIGUEL TOLENTINO, SR., ZOILA DE CHAVEZ, DEOGRACIAS MERCADO, MARIANO PANTOJA, GUILLERMO MERCADO, AGAPITO REYES, ISIDRO BESAS, LEONA LACHICA, ELENO MACALINDONG, DIONISIO MACALINDONG, DOROTEO SARA, JOAQUIN CAUNCERAN, VIRGILIO AGUILAR, FELIX DUMAN, PIO BACULI, ANTERO APOLINAR, FLAVIANO CURZADO, ROSENDO IBAÑEZ, ARCADIO GONZALES, FELIX BORJA AND BLAS BASCO, petitioners, vs. HON. JAIME DE LOS ANGELES, Judge CFI of Batangas Branch III, Balayan, Batangas; AYALA Y CIA. and/or HACIENDA CALATAGAN and ALFONSO ZOBEL, respondents.

FACTS

This case arose from the refusal of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, presided by respondent Judge Jaime de los Angeles, to order the execution of its final decision in Civil Case No. 373, as modified by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-20950. In the original case, the Republic of the Philippines sought the annulment of titles obtained by Ayala y Cia., Alfonso Zobel, and the Dizon family over portions of territorial waters included in Hacienda Calatagan’s survey, which increased its area. Intervenors, including Miguel Tolentino, were holders of fishpond permits over the disputed areas. The trial court declared the disputed lots (360, 362, 363, and 182) as part of the public domain (foreshore, beach, or navigable waters), annulled the corresponding titles, ordered their reversion, directed the Dizons to vacate Lot 360 in favor of Tolentino, and held all defendants jointly and severally liable for compensatory damages to Tolentino. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings but modified the judgment, holding that the Dizons, as purchasers in good faith, had a right to retain the property until reimbursed for necessary expenses and could not be held liable for damages. After the Supreme Court’s decision became final, the trial court initially issued a writ of execution but later granted the defendants’ motion to quash it and denied a subsequent motion for issuance of another writ, prompting the petitioners to file this action for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion and/or exceeded his jurisdiction in refusing to order the execution of the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-20950.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the orders of the respondent Judge dated January 18, February 2, February 8, and April 13, 1966, and directed him to order the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision in G.R. No. L-20950. The Court held that the respondent Judge’s duty to order execution of a final judgment is ministerial. The respondents’ justification—that the dispositive portion was vague because the extinction of the Dizons’ solidary liability allegedly affected the obligation of the other defendants—was devoid of merit. The Supreme Court clarified that its modification meant the Dizons were never under a solidary obligation to pay damages; only the other defendants (Ayala y Cia. and/or Hacienda Calatagan and Alfonso Zobel) were jointly and severally liable. The Dizons’ right of retention did not negate the executability of the judgment annulling the titles and reverting the lots to public domain. The claims for additional damages by petitioners were disallowed; the P80,000 claim was already adjudicated in the main decision, and the P100,000 claim for prolonging litigation was not suitable for determination in a certiorari and mandamus proceeding.