HEIRS OF JUAN PRESTO AND JUAN ARCEMO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. EREBERTO GALANG, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Oriental Mindoro, Branch II, rendered in civil
case R-438, certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the
same involves solely a question of law.

The record of the case bears out the following incidents:

Sometime on February 14, 1959, the municipal court of Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro,
rendered a decision in civil case No. 30 of said court entitled
“Juan Presto and Juan Arcemo, plaintiffs, versus
Ereberto Galang, et al.,
defendants” for “Forcible Entry and Detainer”
concerning two parcels of agricultural land situated at Sitio
Panulong, Barrio of Dipolog,
municipality of Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro, the dispositive portion
of which judgment reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court renders judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Ereberto
Galang, ordering the said defendant to vacate the
land in question; pay the plaintiffs the aggregate sum of ONE THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE PESOS (P1,485.00), Philippine Currency annually from May,
1953, as a reasonable value of the use of the land in question annually,
including the value of the produce of the same annually; and said defendant to
pay the costs.” (p. 8, CFI record)

This decision of the municipal court was
appealed by Ereberto Galang
to the Court of First Instance of the province which was docketed therein as civil
case R-842.

On May 13, 1968,
the Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Pascual
M. Beltran, issued an “Order of dismissal” dismissing said civil
case R-842, and We quote:

“Upon calling this case for pre-trial and trial today,
counsels of both parties, Atty. Edgardo Aceron for the plaintiffs and Atty. Tomas Matol for the defendants, appeared.  Atty. Aceron
manifested in open court his motion for the dismissal of this case on the
ground that actually there is a pending administrative case on the same land in
question between the same parties and that it is preferable for the plaintiffs
to desist from prosecuting this case and continue with the administrative case
for the determination of right of ownership and possession over the land in
litigation.  Atty. Matol
for the defendants, likewise, joined the motion of the counsel for the
plaintiffs by conforming to the dismissal of this case without pronouncement as
to damages and costs.

“WHEREFORE, the joint motion of both parties through counsels
to dismiss this case without pronouncement as to damages and costs is hereby
approved and granted.

“This case is hereby dismissed without damages and costs.

“IT IS SO ORDERED.

“At Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, May 13, 1968.

“(SGD.)
PASCUAL M. BELTRAN

Judge “

(p. 22, ibid)

On August 1, 1975, the heirs of Juan Presto who was one of the
plaintiffs in the abovementioned forcible entry and detainer
case and the other plaintiff, Juan Arcemo, filed with
the municipal court of Mansalay the present action
for “Execution of Judgment” against Ereberto
Galang (civil case No. 96) praying that the decision
of said court in civil case No. 30 (quoted in pages 1 & 2 of this
Decision) be ordered executed inasmuch as it had long become final and executory.  (pp. 7
& 8, CFI record)

Summons having been served in civil case No. 96 on defendant Ereberto Galang, the latter, thru
counsel, filed a “Motion to dismiss” the complaint principally on the
ground that

“The judgment sought for execution has been vacated and
rendered without legal effects by the order of dismissal in civil case No.
R-842 of the Court of First Instance dated May 13, 1968.” (p. 19, CFI record)

The plaintiffs therein filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss claiming inter alia that the decision
of the municipal court in civil case No. 30 is subsisting, final and executory and may be ordered executed under the provisions
of Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court which provides:

“Effect of appeals.- A perfected appeal shall operate to
vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace or the municipal court, and the
action shall stand for trial de novo upon its merits in accordance with the
regular procedure of that court, as if the same had never been tried before and
had been originally there commenced.  If
the appeal is withdrawn, or dismissed for failure to prosecute, the judgment
shall be deemed revived and shall forthwith be remanded to the Justice of the
Peace or Municipal Court for execution.” (p. 31, CFI record)

The municipal court found the motion to dismiss meritorious and
accordingly dismissed the complaint for execution of judgment.  (p. 33, ibid.)

The foregoing order of dismissal of the municipal court was appealed
to the Court of First Instance and was docketed therein as civil case 438.  (pp. 34-35, ibid.) On April 26, 1976, Judge lldefonso
M. Bleza rendered his decision affirming the order of
dismissal.  (pp. 36-37, ibid.) A
reconsideration having been denied, said decision was elevated to the Court of
Appeals, and the latter, as stated earlier, certified to this Court the appeal.

We find no reversible error in the decision of the trial court
under review.

Appellants cannot claim that with the order of dismissal of May 13, 1968 of civil case R-842
by the Court of First Instance of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, the decision of the municipal court
of Mansalay in the forcible entry and detainer case is revived and can be the subject of a writ
of execution.  Appellants fail to
consider that it was not the appeal of defendant Ereberto
Galang in said forcible entry and detainer
case which was dismissed by Court of First Instance Judge Pascual
M. Beltran, but that it was the case itself, on the basis of a motion of
counsel for the plaintiffs Juan Presto and Juan Arcemo.  The order of dismissal of Judge Beltran
expressly states that the parties agreed to desist from prosecuting the
forcible entry and detainer case and instead to
continue with the administrative case then pending for the determination of the
right of ownership and posses­sion over the land in litigation; hence, the
order dismissing the case.  With the
consequent dismissal of the forcible entry and detainer
case, the contending parties remained in the same standing or status as they
were prior to the filing of said civil case 30 with the municipal court of Mansalay.

It is a settled rule that for purposes of execution of a
judgment, it is the dispositive part of the decision
which controls.^[1]
However, where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body of the opinion may
be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the
decision’s ratio decidendi.^[2]

In the case now before Us, there is actually no ambiguity in the dispositive portion of the order of Judge Beltran, but even
if there is, the body of the order of dismissal sufficiently dispels such
ambiguity.  The ratio decidendi of the dismissal of the forcible
entry and detainer case is clear on this, and We will
repeat:

“x x x
Atty. Aceron manifested in open court his motion for
the dismissal of this case on the ground that actually there is a pending
administrative case on the same land in question between the same parties and
that it is preferable for the plaintiffs to desist from prosecuting this case
and continue with the administrative case for the determination of right of
ownership and possession over the land in litigation.  Atty. Matol for the
defendants, likewise, joined the motion of the counsel for the plaintiffs by
conforming to the dismissal of this case without pronouncement as to damages
and costs.” (p. 22, CFI record)

The above statements give the reason for the dismissal of the
forcible entry case and conclude the matter before Us.  There is no decision in the forcible entry
case which can be executed.  The judgment
of the municipal court against Ereberto Galang was vacated upon appeal by the latter
to the Court of First Instance and upon the latter’s dismissal of the case
(not the appeal), that dismissal did not revive the judgment of
the municipal court.  Cadit
quaestio – the matter admits of no further
argument.

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is dismissed and the Decision of
the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro rendered
in civil case R-438 dismissing appellants’ complaint for “execution
of judgment” is affirmed. 
With costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

So Ordered.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Martin, Fernandez, and
Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1] Casilan vs. De Salcedo, et
al., Jan. 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 744 citing Neri Edwards,
et al. vs. Jose Arce, et al., 98 Phil. 688; Romero Sr., et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 172; Castillo et al. vs.
Nagtalon et al., Jan. 29, 1962, 4 SCRA 48; Robles vs.
Timario, April 28, 1960, 107 Phil. 809.

^[2]
Filipino Legion Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, Lentija,
et al., April 30, 1974, 56 SCRA 674, 690, citing Morelos
vs. Go Chin Ling, et al., 105 Phil. 814, 818, and others.