FELICISIMA B. SALOMON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSE M. MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, AND JUAN ENTIONG YU, RESPONDENTS.

Salomon versus Mendoza

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Felicisima Salomon against Judge Jose Mendoza, in his capacity as presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and against Juan Entiong Yu. Salomon asks the Supreme Court to annul an order issued by the respondent judge in an unlawful detainer case, an order which declared that she had forfeited her right to occupy a parcel of land because she failed to pay the monthly rentals fixed in a final judgment. The case matters because it draws the line between an amendment in substance of a final judgment, which is forbidden, and a mere execution or clarification of a condition already written into that judgment, which is allowed. It is a classic review topic on the finality of judgments and on the scope of what a judgment necessarily carries with it.

Procedural History

Juan Entiong Yu filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Salomon in the municipal court, which decided in his favor. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in a judgment rendered in February 1961, dismissed the complaint and held that Salomon could continue occupying the land as long as she paid the monthly rental. Yu appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in November 1963.

On motion of Yu, the trial court in June 1964 issued an order of execution for unpaid rentals, and the corresponding writ was issued. Yu then filed a motion for clarification of the judgment. Over Salomon's written opposition, the respondent judge issued the order complained of in July 1964, declaring that payment of rentals was a condition for continued occupancy, that Salomon had forfeited her right to occupy even before her building was destroyed by fire, and that Yu was entitled to possess the entire land. Salomon did not move for reconsideration and did not appeal. She later filed a petition for relief, which was denied, and the injunction she had obtained was dissolved. She then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari, and the Court issued a preliminary injunction, which it later dissolved.

Facts

The land in dispute consists of portions of two commercial lots in Cebu City, owned by the Provincial Government of Cebu and formerly leased to Higinio Sun, who had a building of strong materials on the property. In 1954 Sun sold a half share in the building to Salomon, undertaking to have her subrogated as lessee of the land, and from then on she paid one half of the lease rental through Sun.

In July 1953 Sun assigned his leasehold right to Yu and shortly after sold him a half share in the building, with a similar undertaking of subrogation. The assignment was submitted to the Cebu Burnt Area Committee, which in October 1958 awarded a new contract of lease to Yu over the whole area for ten years, renewable for a like period. In 1959 Yu demanded that Salomon pay an increased monthly rent for the portion she occupied. She ignored the demand, and Yu filed the unlawful detainer case.

After the judgment became final, Salomon failed to pay the rentals, and execution issued for the unpaid amounts from October 1958 to June 1964. In June 1964 the building of which she was part owner was destroyed by fire, and Yu manifested his intention to construct a new building on the entire area. The trial court then issued the order now challenged, and Yu began construction. Salomon raised no objection until she filed her petition for relief, by which time the new building was already half finished.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the order of July 1964, by amending in substance a judgment that had already become final.
• Whether or not the proper remedy of the winning plaintiff, upon the defendant's failure to pay the rentals, was a new action for ejectment rather than an order in the same case.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory provision; it construes the dispositive portion of the final judgment, which reads:

The defendant can continue occupying the land as long as she pays monthly rental to the plaintiff of the same amount of 80.66 pesos which the latter would pay to the Provincial Government of Cebu in accordance with his contract Exhibit B.

This conditional disposition is the textual anchor of the whole case, because the Court reads the condition as carrying its own consequence upon non-compliance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent court did not exceed its jurisdiction. It is settled that once a judgment has become final it may no longer be corrected or amended in substance. But the Court explained that while the terms of a judgment may be explicit as to what a party is ordered to do, it may not be equally explicit as to the effect of non-compliance, and yet implicit in the judgment is one specific effect as the unavoidable consequence. As the Court put it:

A judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but comprehends what is necessarily included therein or necessary thereto in order to make it effective.

From the condition that Salomon could continue occupying the land as long as she paid the rentals, the clear and necessary inference is that if she failed to pay she could not continue occupying it. The challenged order therefore did not change or modify the judgment substantially. The Court added that the order, and the order denying the petition for relief, had themselves become final, no appeal having been taken.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that Yu's only recourse was a new action for ejectment. Such a contention would render meaningless the express condition imposed for Salomon's continued occupancy and would allow her to refuse to pay the rents with impunity. The Court also weighed equity: the reason for allowing her to stay was that she was part owner of the building, and that reason ceased when the building burned. She had no right to remain under the judgment, as part owner of a destroyed building, or as lessee, since the land had been leased to Yu and her own application for a lease had been disapproved. Having stood silent while Yu built on the land after notice, equity demanded that the order be maintained over purely technical objections.

Doctrine

A final judgment may not be amended or corrected in substance. But a judgment is not confined to what appears on its face; it comprehends what is necessarily included therein or necessary to make it effective. Where a judgment allows a party to continue occupying land as long as she pays the rentals, failure to pay carries the implicit consequence of forfeiture of the right to occupy, and a court order declaring that consequence does not substantially amend the judgment. The winning party need not file a new ejectment action; the condition in the final judgment may be enforced in the same case.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved, and costs were taxed against Salomon.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a judgment comprehends what is necessarily included therein or necessary to make it effective. Examiners use this case to test finality of judgments, the distinction between a substantial amendment and a mere clarification, and the enforcement of a conditional dispositive portion without a new action.