JUAN T. CHUIDIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, dismissing appellant’s petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction. The stipulation of facts upon which the case was submitted
for decision reads as follows:

1. That petitioner was formerly occupying Suite 207
Singson Bldg., situated at P. Moraga, Manila, owned by the respondent
V. Singson Encarnacion, for wliich the petitioner was paying P1,300.00
a month;

“2, That respondent V. Singson Encarnacion filed a
complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila on August 9, 1954, praying
that the petitioner be ejected from the above-mentioned premises and to
pay the back rentals in the amount of P6,608.30, including charges on
light, water and interest, and such other rentals that may accrue from
time to time until petitioner vacates the premises at the monthly rate
of P1,300.00;

“3. That on October 19, 1954, the respondent
Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila rendered judgment in favor of V.
Singson Encarnacion ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises and
to pay the amount set forth in the complaint and such other rentals
that may accrue from time to time until he vacates the premises;

“4.
That the petitioner, the attorney-in-fact of respondent, and the lawyer
of the respondent V. Singson Encarnacion conferred and it was agreed
that the writ of execution be stayed in the meantime conditioned upon
the payment of the outstanding account of the petitioner within a
reasonable time and to keep up to date his subsequent monthly rentals;

“5.
That while said complaint was pending the petitioner, on August 25,
1964, paid P3,000.00 and left a balance of P4,398.72 more or less,
including charges on light, water and interest;

“6. That on
September 10, 1904, the petitioner paid P2,000.00 leaving a balance of
P3,876.02, more or less, including charges on light and water and
interest;

“7. That from the date of the judgment of the
Municipal Court of Manila, the petitioner paid on October 20, 1954, the
amount of P2,398.72 leaving a balance of P4,360.23, and on January 14,
1955, paid P1,000.00 leaving a balance of P6,289.61 including charges
on light, water and interest;

”8. That on April 11, 1955,
when the amount due from the petitioner was P10,833.30 more or less,
respondent V. Singson Encarnacion filed a motion for the issuance of an
alias writ of execution to enforce the judgment of the Municipal Court
of Manila.

“9. That petitioner filed a motion to quash the
alias writ of execution issued by the Municipal Court of Manila on the
ground that the judgment which the respondent V. Singson Encarnacion
sought to enforce was novated by a subsequent agreement wherein the
petitioner was given ample time within which to settle his obligation
in installment;

“10. That while said motion for the issuance
of an alias writ of execution to enforce the judgment of the Municipal
Court of Manila was pending the petitioner paid P4,000.00 on May 7,
1955 leaving, a balance of P5,861.70 more or less including charges on
light, water and interest;

“11. That on June 18, 1955, the
respondent Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila denied, the
petitioner’s motion to quash and issue an alias writ of execution;

“12. That on June 24, 1955, the petitioner filed the present action;

“13.
That on August 12, 1955, the petitioner made a payment of P3,000.00,
this time leaving a balance of P4,348.35 more or less including charges
on light, water and interest;

“14. That on August 15, 1955,
petitioner paid P2,500.00 and while this case is pending he voluntarily
vacated the premises leaving a balance of P2,399.89, excluding interest
thereon up to the present.”

The petitioner-appellant argues that the lower court erred because
the order of dismissal was not based on clear findings of facts, and a
correct appreciation of the recitals in the foregoing stipulations
should have warranted the conclusion that an alias writ of execution
was not proper, since the judgment of the Municipal Court had been
extinguished or novated by a subsequent compromise agreement between
the parties. This argument is not tenable. The appealed order quoted
the stipulations of facts, and the findings of the lower court are of
course the very facts admitted therein. Without stating in so many
words, said court, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, ruled
that those facts did not support the claim of extinguishment or
modification of judgment by novation.

We would elaborate, further by observing that the compromise
agreement invoked by the petitioner was not incompatible with, and was
only a means or mode of enforcing, the clearly continuing judgment of
the Municipal Court, so that, upon default on the part of the
petitioner to fulfill the condition for the stay of its enforcement,
corresponding writ of execution was properly applied for and issued.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.