G.R. No. L-30359 October 3, 1975
FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGINIA D. VDA. DE HERNANDEZ, JOSE ABEL, VICENTE SANTOS and MATIAS COSTELO, defendants. VIRGINIA D. VDA. DE HERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting an ex parte motion for execution of a final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 48670. Defendant-appellant Virginia D. Vda. de Hernandez received a copy of the order on June 7, 1965, and filed a motion for reconsideration on June 9, 1965. She argued that the grant of the writ of execution without prior notice and hearing violated Section 6 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. The court denied her motion for reconsideration on June 29, 1965. The defendant-appellant appealed the orders to the Court of Appeals, which later certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the absence of prior notice for an application for a writ of execution on a final and executory judgment, without a showing of prejudice to the judgment debtor, renders the execution and subsequent proceedings void.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order granting the ex parte motion for execution. The legal logic is anchored on the ministerial nature of issuing a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment. The Court clarified that while notice is generally required for motions where a party has a right to resist the relief sought, such as a motion for new trial or execution pending appeal, Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court does not prescribe that a copy of a motion for execution of a final judgment must be served on the defeated party. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party is entitled to its execution as a matter of right, and it becomes the court’s ministerial duty to issue the writ. The Court emphasized that the judgment debtor is not deprived of due process, as the opportunity to be heard was afforded during the main litigation. The absence of advance notice for execution does not infringe constitutional guarantees, as the debtor must take “notice of what will follow” after final judgment. Since the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or that her case fell under recognized exceptions—such as a change in circumstances making execution inequitable or satisfaction of the judgment—the ex parte grant of execution was proper. The appeal was dismissed, and the order affirmed.