J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, AND FELIPE PAPA, RESPONDENTS.

Tuason versus Masakayan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by J.M. Tuason and Company, Incorporated against Judge Honorato B. Masakayan, then presiding over the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and against Felipe Papa. The petitioner owns registered land in Quezon City and holds a final and executory judgment ejecting Papa from a portion of it. When the petitioner moved for a special order of demolition to carry that judgment out, the respondent judge instead held final action and enforcement in abeyance, waiting for the outcome of other cases questioning the petitioner's root of title. The case matters because it fixes the duty of a trial court toward a final judgment, and because it shows that once the doubt over a Torrens title is settled by the Supreme Court, delay has no further excuse.

Procedural History

The petitioner sued Papa for recovery of possession and damages before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, then presided by Judge Nicasio Yatco. The trial court ruled for the petitioner, declared Papa without any valid right of possession, ordered him to vacate and remove his constructions, and awarded damages and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The judgment became final and executory, and upon motion the lower court, now presided by the respondent judge, ordered execution and a writ was issued by the Clerk of Court. Papa then moved to vacate the writ, and the respondent judge denied the motion, recognizing his mandatory duty to execute the final decision. But after the petitioner moved for a special order of demolition, the respondent judge changed course and issued the challenged order holding final action and enforcement in abeyance. The petitioner came to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Facts

The petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, which on its face traces back to Original Certificate of Title No. 735 issued on July 8, 1914 by the Register of Deeds of Rizal. On or about February 17 and 24, 1957, Felipe Papa occupied a portion of the property without the petitioner's knowledge and consent.

The petitioner sued for recovery of possession and damages. On November 28, 1958, after hearing, the trial court declared the land belongs to the petitioner, adjudged Papa without any valid right of possession and title, ordered him to vacate and remove his constructions, and to pay damages and costs. On March 14, 1966, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The judgment became final and executory.

On motion of the petitioner, the lower court ordered execution, and the writ issued on June 27, 1966. On July 21, 1966, Papa moved to vacate the writ, claiming the petitioner's ownership was subject to serious doubts because of a January 18, 1965 decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch II, in three civil cases, holding that all transfer certificates of title derived from Original Certificate of Title No. 735 are null and void, which decision had been appealed. On July 25, 1966, the respondent judge denied the motion, holding it his mandatory duty to enforce the final decision. Yet on July 30, 1966, he issued the challenged order holding final action on the demolition motion and the enforcement of the judgment in abeyance pending the final determination of the appealed cases.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding in abeyance the enforcement of a final and executory judgment and the resolution of the motion for a special order of demolition.
• Whether or not the pendency of other cases questioning the validity of the petitioner's original certificate of title furnished a valid ground to suspend execution.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the settled rule that a final and executory judgment may no longer be disturbed, and on the prior ruling in the related cases that settled the validity of the title.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the writ of certiorari. The challenged order was dictated by prudence and caution, the respondent judge deeming it advisable to await the outcome of the related petitions. But the Court stressed that there was a judgment against Papa to vacate, and that judgment had long become final. Papa was adamant, and the petitioner was driven to seek an order of demolition. The Court held that the reason for the postponement, even assuming it was not then tainted with infirmity, was of no moment now.

On the second issue, the Court held that the doubt over the title had been set at rest. Only last June, in the joint decision in the Benin, Alcantara, and Pili cases, after a most thorough review of all relevant facts and the authoritative precedents, whatever doubt there might be as to the title had been resolved. With that, there was lacking the slightest pretense for the lower court to delay action on the motion for the issuance of the order of demolition. The petitioner must prevail.

Doctrine

A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and must be enforced; a trial court has the mandatory duty to execute it, and it may not indefinitely hold enforcement in abeyance on the strength of doubts raised in other pending cases. Once the Supreme Court has settled the very question that supposedly cast doubt on a Torrens title, that doubt is laid to rest, and any further postponement of execution is without basis. The remedy against a judge who refuses to perform that duty is certiorari.

Disposition

The petitioner won: the writ of certiorari was granted, the order of July 30, 1966 was nullified and set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court with instruction to act expeditiously on the motion for a special order of demolition in accordance with law.

Remember This

A final and executory judgment must be executed; a court cannot suspend it on mere doubts about the title once those doubts have been settled by the Supreme Court. Examiners use this case on the mandatory duty to execute final judgments and on certiorari as the remedy against a judge who refuses.