G.R. No. L-4614; October 24, 1952
JUAN DELIVA, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, and LEODEGARIO RONQUILLO, respondents.

FACTS

On July 19, 1944, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered a judgment in Civil Case No. 99-R in favor of petitioner Juan Deliva against respondent Leodegario Ronquillo, ordering Ronquillo to deliver one-half of three parcels of land to Deliva and to pay him P1,425 as damages. The record of the case was destroyed during the liberation. Reconstitution proceedings were initiated, and the court declared the record reconstituted on February 13, 1947. Ronquillo moved for reconsideration of this order, and during the proceedings on this motion, evidence was presented on whether the 1944 judgment had been rendered and whether a copy had been served on Ronquillo or his attorney. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Ronquillo appealed to the Court of Appeals, where one of the issues raised and submitted was whether Ronquillo or his attorney had been served with a copy of the 1944 judgment after its rendition. On April 8, 1949, the Court of Appeals rendered a judgment declaring that Ronquillo’s attorney had been served with a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, Deliva filed motions for execution of the judgment and for the appointment of commissioners to partition the land on February 2 and December 1, 1950. The respondent judge, upon Ronquillo’s objection, denied these motions in orders dated February 20 and December 20, 1950, refusing to issue a writ of execution on the ground that the judgment was not yet final because Ronquillo had not been notified of it. Deliva filed this petition for mandamus to compel execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge unlawfully neglected his duty by refusing to issue a writ of execution for a judgment that had been declared reconstituted and where the Court of Appeals had found that notice of the judgment had been served upon the defeated party’s attorney, thereby making the judgment final and executory.

RULING

The petition for mandamus is GRANTED. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge has a ministerial duty to order the execution of a final and executory judgment. The situation in this case is distinct from the rules set in San Jose vs. De Venecia and Velasquez vs. Ysip, which required new service of notice of a reconstituted judgment if such notice had not been reconstituted. Here, not only was the judgment reconstituted, but the fact of service of notice upon the attorney for the respondent was affirmatively found as a fact by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals on appeal. This finding, even if raised as an incidental issue to the main claim of lack of notice of hearing, is a final determination that binds the parties. The judgments containing this finding are part of the reconstituted record. To require a new service of the judgment would effectively reverse these final findings. The claim that the lands cannot be identified due to lack of description is not a legal ground to refuse execution; the sheriff can make a return, and if execution is impossible for that reason, further proceedings can be undertaken. Furthermore, the part of the judgment awarding monetary damages can be executed independently. Therefore, the refusal to issue the writ constitutes an unlawful neglect of a specifically enjoined duty. Costs are awarded against respondent Leodegario Ronquillo.