GR L 47475; (August, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47475 August 19, 1988
MANOTOK REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE H. TECSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and NILO MADLANGAWA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Manotok Realty, Inc. filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against private respondent Nilo Madlangawa. The trial court declared Madlangawa a builder in good faith and ordered Manotok to recognize his right to remain on the lot until reimbursed P7,500.00 for improvements. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court, becoming final and executory. Manotok then filed a motion with the trial court, presided by respondent Judge Jose H. Tecson, to exercise its option under Article 448 of the Civil Code to appropriate the improvements and for satisfaction of judgment. The respondent judge denied the motion, citing equity and supervening events like major repairs and the property’s inclusion in a Zonal Improvement Project after a fire gutted the house. The judge also referenced a Presidential Decree for expropriation, though this was later declared unconstitutional.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for approval of its option to appropriate improvements and for execution of a final judgment.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus. The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. The respondent judge had no discretion to deny the motion based on equity or supervening events like the fire or the expropriation decree, which was subsequently nullified. The right to choose between appropriating the improvements or selling the land belongs solely to the landowner under Article 448. The private respondent’s status as a builder in good faith ceased upon judicial summons, meaning any subsequent improvements were not made in good faith. Crucially, the fire that destroyed the improvements extinguished the very basis for Madlangawa’s right of retention, as the reimbursement claim was tied to those specific structures. With no improvements to reimburse, his right to retain possession lapsed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to possession, and the respondent judge is ordered to issue a writ of execution for the private respondent to vacate and deliver the premises.