Angeles v. Victoriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from Civil Case No. 7951, where the Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in favor of the defendants (herein petitioners). The appellate court declared the appellant (herein respondent Santiago) the legitimate owner of the disputed land and ordered the appellees (herein petitioners) to vacate and deliver possession, along with payment of annual sums from December 26, 1940, until possession was delivered, excluding the war years. Procedural History: Entry of judgment was made by the Court of Appeals on July 30, 1957. Subsequently, the record was remanded to the CFI. Respondent Santiago, unaware of a pending certiorari and mandamus case filed by petitioners in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-13126), moved ex parte for the execution of the judgment. The CFI Judge issued an order of execution and a writ of possession on November 22, 1957, placing Santiago in possession the following day. The execution of the pecuniary portion was held in abeyance when Santiago learned of the pending Supreme Court case. The Petition: Petitioners moved to recall and quash the order of execution and writ of possession, arguing they were null and void due to lack of notice and hearing, and that the decision was not yet final as it was under review by the Supreme Court. The CFI denied the motion, holding that the judgment was final and executory, and its execution was a ministerial duty. The CFI also ruled it had authority to issue the writ as no preliminary injunction was issued by the Supreme Court in the certiorari and mandamus proceedings. After denial of reconsideration, petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge could act on the motion for execution without notice and hearing. Whether the respondent Judge should have granted the ex-parte motion for execution given the pending certiorari and mandamus proceedings in the Supreme Court challenging the finality of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the preliminary injunction is dissolved. The issues raised are moot and academic because the Supreme Court has already dismissed the certiorari and mandamus proceedings (G.R. No. L-13126), rendering the Court of Appeals' decision 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 a final and executory decision, and it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge could act on the motion for execution without notice and hearing: The Court noted that the petitioners' motion to recall and quash the order of execution and writ of possession was denied by the lower court. The lower court's reasoning was that a final judgment had been entered by the Court of Appeals, making the decision executory and its execution a ministerial duty. The petitioners argued that the order was null and void for lack of notice and hearing. However, the Supreme Court ultimately found this issue moot and academic due to the subsequent dismissal of their petition in G.R. No. L-13126. On the issue of whether the respondent Judge should have granted the ex-parte motion for execution considering the pending certiorari and mandamus proceedings: The core of the petitioners' argument was that the decision of the Court of Appeals was not yet final and executory because certiorari proceedings were pending in the Supreme Court to annul the entry of judgment. They contended that the finality of the decision was sub judice. The respondent Judge, however, proceeded with the execution based on the entry of judgment by the Court of Appeals, stating that no preliminary injunction had been issued by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in resolving the present petition, declared that the certiorari and mandamus proceedings (G.R. No. L-13126) had already been dismissed. This dismissal rendered the Court of Appeals' decision final and executory, thereby mooting the petitioners' contention regarding the pendency of the review and the alleged lack of finality. The Court emphasized that under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to the execution of a final and executory decision, and it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to order such execution.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and prohibition questioning the execution of a judgment becomes moot and academic when the Supreme Court dismisses the petition, rendering the judgment sought to be enforced final and executory, making its execution a ministerial duty of the lower court.