G.R. No. L-40675 August 17, 1983
PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE ERICTA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Quezon City, Branch XVIII; THE ACTING BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, Branch XVIII; REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY; and JAIME O. RIVERA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Jaime O. Rivera filed an action for specific performance against petitioner People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC). The Court of First Instance rendered a decision on December 28, 1971, ordering PHHC to execute a deed of sale in favor of Rivera for the entire property described in the complaint and to pay attorney’s fees. This judgment, based on Republic Act No. 3802 which mandated the sale at cost to registered tenants, became final and executory as PHHC failed to appeal. PHHC’s board even passed a resolution approving the sale.
Despite the final judgment and two writs of execution, PHHC refused to execute the deed of sale, claiming Rivera had not completed payment. Consequently, Rivera filed a motion for the court to authorize the branch clerk of court to execute the deed on PHHC’s behalf. Respondent Judge Vicente Ericta granted the motion in an Order dated March 14, 1975, directing the clerk to execute a deed of sale for the amount of P31,427.01, which the decision stated had been fully paid by Rivera.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in issuing the orders for execution, particularly by including the purchase price in the directive despite it not being stated in the dispositive portion of the final decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. The Court upheld the respondent judge’s authority to order the execution of the final and executory judgment through the clerk of court under Rule 39, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, which allows the court to direct an act to be done by another person when a party disobeys a judgment for a specific act.
The legal logic is clear: a final judgment must be executed as a matter of right. The respondent judge’s inclusion of the purchase price (P31,427.01) in the execution order was proper. The Court emphasized that a judgment must be construed in its entirety, not merely by its dispositive portion. The purchase price was explicitly stated in the body of the decision as having been fully paid by Rivera, in accordance with Republic Act No. 3802 . Therefore, specifying this amount in the execution order did not alter the judgment but merely implemented it with necessary particulars. The Court also noted that procedural issues, such as a claimed lack of prior notice for the execution order, did not constitute a jurisdictional defect, especially since PHHC was subsequently heard on a motion for reconsideration. The pendency of an unrelated ejectment case appeal did not bar the execution of the final judgment in this specific performance case.