GR L 33515; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33515. August 30, 1982.
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiff J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., the registered owner of land covered by TCT No. 42774 derived from OCT No. 735, filed an action to recover possession of a 200-square-meter portion occupied by defendant Raymundo Familara. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Familara to vacate and remove his constructions. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals with a minor modification on damages. The judgment became final and executory, and the trial court issued orders for a writ of execution and, subsequently, an order of demolition.
Defendant Familara filed motions to stay execution, predicated on the pendency of other related cases. He specifically cited Civil Cases Nos. 3621-3623 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, wherein OCT No. 735 was allegedly nullified, and the pending Supreme Court case G.R. No. L-24559. The trial court denied these motions, prompting Familara’s appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court certified the case to the Supreme Court, finding that it involved purely a question of law.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to stay the execution of a final and executory judgment based on the pendency of another case challenging the validity of the plaintiff’s title.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s order denying the motion to stay execution. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgment and the conclusive resolution of the foundational challenge to the title. The judgment in the main ejectment case had long become final and executory; thus, the trial court was duty-bound to order its execution. Familara’s reliance on the pendency of other cases was rendered moot by the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in G.R. No. L-24559, promulgated on July 22, 1981. In that decision, the Court explicitly upheld the validity of OCT No. 735 and reversed the lower court decision in Civil Cases Nos. 3621-3623 that had nullified it. Consequently, the basis for Familara’s motion—the alleged cloud on the plaintiff’s title—was definitively extinguished. A final judgment can only be altered or stayed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud, or lack of due process, none of which were present. The execution of a final judgment is a matter of right, and the trial court correctly proceeded with its ministerial duty to enforce it.