Deliva v. Surtida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juan Deliva filed a case against Leodegario Ronquillo for partition of land and recovery of damages. Judgment was rendered in favor of Deliva on July 19, 1944, ordering Ronquillo to deliver one-half of three parcels of land and to pay P1,425 in damages. Procedural History: The records were destroyed during the war. Petitioner initiated reconstitution proceedings, which the respondent court declared reconstituted on February 13, 1947. Ronquillo moved for reconsideration, arguing he or his counsel was not notified of the judgment. The respondent court denied this motion. Ronquillo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the finding that Ronquillo's attorney had been served with a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, motions for execution were filed but denied by the respondent court on February 20 and December 1, 1950, on the ground that the judgment was not yet final due to lack of notice. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent court to execute the judgment, arguing that the refusal to issue a writ of execution constituted unlawful neglect of a duty specifically enjoined by law.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court may legally refuse to issue a writ of execution on the ground that a reconstituted judgment is not final, despite a prior judicial finding that notice of the original judgment had been served upon the party before the records were destroyed.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent court is directed to issue a writ of execution for the judgment rendered in favor of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent court erred in applying the rulings in San Jose v. de Venecia and Velasquez v. Ysip to the present case. In those cases, only the judgment was reconstituted, and since the notice of service had not been established, the Court required new service to start the appeal period. Here, however, the situation is distinct because the fact of service of the 1944 judgment was specifically litigated and determined as a finding of fact by both the CFI and the CA during the reconstitution proceedings. The Court emphasized that reconstitution under Act No. 3110 does not strictly require a "physical or verbatim reproduction" of the destroyed documents if the essence of the proceeding—such as the service of notice—is established by judicial finding. To require a new service of the dispositive part of the decision would effectively reverse the final finding already made by two courts that notice had already been served, thereby undermining the finality of the judgment. Furthermore, the respondent's claim that the land could not be identified for lack of description is not a valid legal reason to deny execution, as the sheriff can make a return on that matter, and the money judgment for damages (P1,425) can be executed regardless of the land description. Consequently, the judgment is final and executory, making the issuance of the writ of execution a ministerial duty compellable by mandamus.
Main Doctrine
A finding by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that notice of a judgment was served upon the attorney of the defeated party, even if incidental to the main issue, is a factual finding that binds the parties and is sufficient to establish the finality of the judgment for purposes of execution, provided such finding is part of the reconstituted record.