FELICITAS OLEGA ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. MAGDALENA GARCIA ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an original petition for the writ of certiorari, with injunction,
instituted in this court by Felicitas, Rafaela, and Vicenta, of the surname
Olega, with whom are joined their three several husbands, against Magdalena
Garcia and husband, with whom are joined, in their official capacity, the judge
of the Court of First Instance and the sheriff of the Province of Tayabas. The
purpose of the proceeding is to quash an execution issued from the Court of
First Instance of Tayabas, now in the hands of the respondent sheriff. Upon the
filing of the petition in this court a preliminary injunction was granted, upon
the giving of bond by the petitioners in the amount of P400, enjoining the
respondents from levying the execution referred to. None of the respondents have
appeared or answered the petition, and the cause is now1 before us for
resolution upon the allegations of the petition and the facts appearing in the
exhibits accompanying the same.

It appears that heretofore a civil action was instituted by the herein
petitioners against Magdalena Garcia and husband, Timoteo Santos, the same being
civil cause No. 2554 in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. One of the
features of the complaint in said action was that the plaintiffs prayed for an
order requiring the defendants to sell to the plaintiffs a lot upon which is
located a house belonging to the plaintiffs. As a result of said litigation the
court gave judgment, upon this prayer, in favor of the plaintiffs, requiring the
defendant Magdalena Garcia to sell said lot to the plaintiffs for the sum of
P400. By a subsequent order the court appears to have required the plaintiffs to
pay the additional sum of P17.56 as travel expenses incurred by the
defendants.

Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, Magdalena Garcia and husband executed a
deed, conveying to the Olegas the lot which had been the subject of the
aforesaid litigation for the sum of P400. The Olegas,, however, failed to make
the corresponding payment; and on March 24, 1930, Magdalena Garcia and her.
husband filed in the court a petition asking for the issuance of a writ of
execution to compel the Olegas to pay to the defendants the sum of P417.56, plus
the sheriff’s fees. Opposition to this petition was made by the Olegas; but in
the end the court acceded to the petition and the execution against which the
present petition is directed was issued.

As will be noted from the statement above made, the present petitioners, as
plaintiffs in civil case No. 2554 of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas,
obtained a judgment against the respondents herein, who are also defendants in
said litigation, requiring them to sell to the plaintiffs a lot of land; and
while the defendants are prepared to consummate the sale, the plaintiffs, in
whose favor and at whose instance the judgment was granted, have failed to
comply with the obligation imposed by the judgment therein to pay to the
defendants the sum of money which was awarded to the defendants as the price of
the land. The petitioners now claim that, the judgment having been made” in
their favor and not against them, they alone have control of the judgment; and
it is insisted that while the plaintiffs might enforce the execution of the
judgment, it cannot be enforced against them by the defendants.

This idea is in our opinion untenable. The existence of an obligation implies
mutuality of right; and when the Court of First Instance of Tayabas adjudged
that the defendant Magdalena Garcia and husband were bound to sell the lot which
had been the subject of the litigation to the Olegas for the sum of P400, this
implied a legal obligation upon the part of the Olegas to comply with the order
to make payment for the lot. It is true that it was not expressed in the
judgment that Magdalena Garcia and husband might have execution for the money
due to them, but the making of such an order was an appropriate supplemental
proceeding; and we are of the opinion that when the trial court, upon the
petition of the defendants and against the opposition of the plaintiffs, ordered
execution to issue against the plaintiffs, the court was acting within the
limits of its jurisdiction.

The petition must therefore be denied and the preliminary injunction
heretofore granted will be dissolved. So ordered, with costs against the
petitioners.

Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real,
JJ., concur.