REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, HON. RAMON R.SAN JOSE, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA (BRANCH IV), MACARIO H. OFILADA, AS SHE…

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent judge of
first instance and the sheriff of Manila immediately to place petitioner in
physical possession of certain real properties purchased by it at a foreclosure
sale.

The essential facts are not in dispute as they appear in copies of court
record attached to the pleadings. But after the case had been heard and pending
decision on the merits, respondents filed an urgent ex-parte motion, dated
January 14, 1955, praying that the sheriff of Manila be enjoined from (among
other things) ejecting the respondents from the properties in question as a
result of a final and executory judgment rendered by the municipal court of
Manila in an ejection suit docketed therein as Civil Case No. 32496 and entitled
“Republic Surety & Ins. Co, Inc., plaintiff, versus Eugenio S. de Gracia,
Felina A, de Gracia, Estanislawa Valdres, Tirso Ramos, Filomena Lucena, and
Margarita Ramirez, defendants,” ordering the respondents to vacate the same
premises involved in the present case, it being alleged as a ground for the
motion that the execution of said judgment would be violative of certain
resolutions rendered by this Court in the present case. Apprised by these
allegations that when this case was filed in this Court on August 9, 1954, an
action for ejection had already been commenced (on July 2, 1954) in the
municipal court and that, on December 1st of that same year judgment was therein
rendered, for the enforcement of which, after it had become final, a writ of
execution was issued under date of January 4, 1955, this Court became aware that
the present petition for mandamus had already become superflous, since its
objective, which is to place petitioner in possession of the properties in
question, may likewise be attained thru the writ of execution issued by the
municipal court. Consequently, this Court, in its resolution of March 29, 1955,
required petitioner to show cause why the present case for mandamus should not
be dismissed for being unnecessary. By way of return to the said order to show
cause, petitioner, without denying the existence of final and executory judgment
in the ejection or detainer case in the municipal oourt, pleads—

“3. That the issue in the said detainer case in the Munioipal Court of Manila
although involving the same real property relate chiefly to the fact of
possession which can arise with or without extra-judicial foreclosure
proceedings under act No. 3135, as amended;

“4. That the issue in this case is not the fact of possession but the
authority of a superior court to issue a certain kind of order in pursuance of
the law and the consequent duty of the sheriff of Manila to enforce such an
order which are important for determination;

“5. That a decision on the merits in this case will once and for all decide
whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has the auhtority to issue
such a writ of possession over the real property foreclosed under Act No. 3135
as amended and in the affirmative, whether or not the same writ can be enforced
by the Sheriff of Manila for which reason a decision on the merits in this case
shall be of far reaching importance and shall constitute a jurisprudence of
great consequence in the sense that people will save a lot of money by being
guided accordingly on what to do if and when they become purchasers for value of
real properties foreclosed under act No. 3135 as amended.”

We are not impressed by petitioner’s reason for non-dismissal, it being
manifest that the writ prayed for has become unnecessary because of a writ of
execution on already issued in the municipal court, which, when, carried out,
will necessarily bring about the ejectment of the respondents from the premises
in question and place the petitioner in possession thereof.

Wherefore, the petition for mandamus is ordered dismissed. Without costs.

Pablo, Bengzon , Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.