FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH I, BENITO MACROHON, AS EX-OFICIO SHERIFF OF TH…

This is an original action for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction to annul an order of execution and writ of
possession issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case
No. 7951, entitled “Vicente Santiago, plaintiff, vs. Sixto de
los Angeles et al., defendants,” and to restrain the provincial sheriff
of Rizal from carrying out the same into effect.

The record
shows that said Civil Case No. 7951 was originally decided in favor of
the defendants, herein petitioners, but, on appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the decision was reversed (CA-G. R. No. 16631-R). The
dispositive part of the decision of the appellate court dated June 20,
1957 reads as follows:

“Por Tanto, con
revocacion de la sentencia apelada y sobreseimiento de la
contrademanda, se declara al apelante dueño legitimo del terreno
cuestionado y se ordena a los apelados y a sus agentes que desalojen el
mismo. Se condena a los demandados al pago de las costas procesales y
de la cantidad de P300.00 anuales desde la fecha en que fueron
emplazados dela demanda fechada el 26 de Diciembre de 1940 hasta el dia
de la entrega de la posesion de la propiedad litigada, con exclusion de
los años en que duro la ultima guerra mundia.”

No motion for reconsideration having been filed within the prescribed
period, entry of judgment was made on July 30, 1957, which entry became
the subject matter of an original action for certiorari and mandamus
instituted in this Court by herein petitioners (G. R. No. L-13126).

In the meantime, the record of Civil Case No. 7951 was remanded by the Court of Appeals to the court of origin. Upon motion ex parte
filed by herein respondent Santiago who was not then aware of the
institution of the original action (G.R. No. L-13126) in this Court—the
respondent Judge, on November 22, 1967, issued the order of execution
and writ of possession now complained of. The following day, respondent
Santiago was placed in possession of the property in question, the
execution of the pecuniary portion of the judgment, however, was held
in abeyance upon manifestation of respondent Santiago himself who had
by then learned of the filing of the special civil action in G. R. No.
L-13126.

Herein petitioners, defendants below, moved to
recall and quash the order of execution and writ of possession on the
grounds that it was null and void because it was issued without hearing
and without notice, and that the decision sought to be executed had not
yet become final, the same having been brought to this Court “for
review”. The motion, however, was denied, the lower court holding that
final judgment had been entered by the Court of Appeals “so that the
said judgment, has become executory and the prevailing party, is
therefore entitled as of right to its execution which becomes a
ministerial duty of this Court to order.” The court also ruled that it
had authority to issue the order of execution and writ of possession
because there was no preliminary injunction issued by this Court, in
the certiorari and mandamus proceedings (G. R. No. L-13126), and that
the petition therein filed did not ipso facto affect the
finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals since it was not a
petition for review but one which involves the original jurisdiction of
this Court. Reconsideration of the order having been denied, the
defendants brought the case to this Court through the present petition
for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. The
petition was given due course and upon the filing of the required bond
by the petitioners, the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for was
issued by this Court.

The questions raised by petitioners are:

“1.
May the Respondent Judge act upon the motion of respondent Santiago for
the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals without notice to
your petitioners and without hearing?

“2. Assuming that it
may, should the respondent Judge grant the ex-parte motion for
execution considering that the decision of the Court is not yet final
and executory, (since) certiorari proceedings are pending to annul,
revoke and vacate the entry of said decision (G. R. No. L-13126) and
hence the finality of the decision in question is in issue and
therefore subjudice?”

The issues raised may
now be considered moot and academic, since we have already dismissed
the certiorari and mandamus proceedings (G. R. No. L-13126) and,
consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be
enforced has already become final and executory. Under section 1, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, the prevailing party is entitled, as a matter
of right, to the execution of said decision and it but becomes the
ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ of execution. (Fiesta vs. Llorente, 25 Phil., 554; Lim vs. Singian, 37 Phil., 817; Buenaventura vs. Garcia, 78 Phil., 759; Ebero vs. Cañizares, 79 Phil., 152; Manansala vs.
Narvasa et al., G. R. No. L-10223, August 29, 1957.) It is not disputed
that respondent Santiago’s motion to execute the decision in question
did not call for the adjudication of new and independent matters, and
there being no showing or even an allegation of any just or valid cause
for opposing its execution, we see no necessity to continue these
proceedings, and much less to disturb the proceedings below.

Wherefore, the petition is hereby dismissed and the preliminary
injunction heretofore issued dissolved. So ordered without costs.

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