People's Homesite & Housing Corporation v. Ericta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Jaime O. Rivera obtained a judgment ordering petitioner People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) to execute a deed of sale for a property and to pay attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Republic Act No. 3802, which provided for the sale at cost to registered tenants/lessees of dwelling units occupied by them, with past rentals applied to the purchase price. Petitioner PHHC failed to appeal the judgment, which became final and executory. PHHC's board also approved the sale and waived the attorney's fees. Procedural History: Despite two writs of execution, PHHC failed to execute the deed of sale, claiming respondent Rivera had not completed payment. Rivera filed a motion for the court to appoint the clerk of court to execute the deed of sale, asserting full payment. Respondent judge granted the motion, ordering the Clerk of Court to execute the deed of sale for P31,427.01, stating that this amount had already been paid by Rivera and that the deed would have the same effect as if executed by PHHC. PHHC's motion for reconsideration was denied, with the judge clarifying that the purchase price, though not in the dispositive portion, was stated in the decision itself and that the entire decision should be considered to ascertain the true intent and meaning. The Petition: PHHC filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, contending that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by ordering the execution of the deed of sale and the issuance of a transfer certificate of title by adding matters not included in the dispositive portion of the decision. PHHC also raised issues regarding the execution of the deed before they were furnished a copy of the order and the pendency of another appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the Clerk of Court to execute a deed of sale on behalf of petitioner PHHC. Whether the inclusion of the purchase price in the order of execution, when it was not explicitly stated in the dispositive portion of the final judgment, constitutes an act without or in excess of jurisdiction. Whether the execution of the deed of sale by the Clerk of Court before petitioner was furnished a copy of the execution order is a jurisdictional defect. Whether the pendency of another appeal affects the validity of the execution orders.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of legal basis and merit. The temporary restraining order is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the execution of the deed of sale: The Court held that the respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion. The judge was merely ordering the execution of the dispositive portion of the decision, which unequivocally ordered the execution of a deed of sale in favor of the respondent. This judgment had long become final and executory. The petitioner failed to present any claim that the amount paid by the respondent, which was P31,427.01 representing rentals for ten years, did not cover the full cost of the property as fixed by Republic Act No. 3802. The decision's clear implication was that these rentals fully covered the purchase price. Therefore, the judgment ordering the unqualified execution of the sale was proper. The petitioner's failure to appeal the original judgment meant it could no longer dispute it. Furthermore, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to prove any deficiency in payment during the motion for execution and reconsideration, but failed to do so. The petitioner's subsequent challenge to the adverse orders in certiorari and prohibition proceedings, after submitting the issue for the judge's resolution, placed it in estoppel. On the issue of including the purchase price not explicitly in the dispositive portion: The Court clarified that the dispositive portion of a decision is not the only part that constitutes the judgment. To ascertain the true intent and meaning of a decision, it must be considered in its entirety. The inclusion of the purchase price of P31,427.01 in the deed of sale to be executed by the Clerk of Court did not prejudice PHHC nor alter the decision. While the purchase price was not in the dispositive part, it was clearly stated on page two of the decision itself. The order of March 14, 1975, was precisely to execute the dispositive portion of the decision, which ordered the execution of a deed of sale. The judge's reasoning that the purchase price could be found in the body of the decision and that the entire decision should be considered to determine the judgment's intent was sound and in line with established jurisprudence. The Court reiterated that the judgment ordered the execution of the sale without further payment, and PHHC failed to demonstrate any deficiency in the substantial rental payments made by the respondent over a ten-year period. On the issue of the Clerk of Court executing the deed before petitioner was furnished a copy: The Court found this contention without merit. The fact that the deed of sale was executed before PHHC was furnished a copy of the execution order, due to an oversight by the mailing clerk, did not constitute a jurisdictional defect affecting the order's validity. The order for execution of a deed of sale was a matter of right flowing from a final and executory judgment and could have been issued ex parte under Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, PHHC had a full opportunity to contest the order through its motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied. Therefore, this procedural lapse did not invalidate the execution order. On the issue of the pendency of another appeal: The Court also found no abuse of discretion when the respondent judge issued the execution order despite the pendency of an appeal in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 51545-R). This appeal involved PHHC's challenge to a lower court's injunction against an ejectment order against the respondent, which was rendered moot by PHHC's subsequent approval of the sale. The Court noted that the ejectment order had become moot and academic. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals had affirmed the lower court's judgment, and final entry of judgment was made. Therefore, the pendency of that appeal had no bearing on the validity of the execution orders in the present case.
Main Doctrine
A court may direct the Clerk of Court to execute a deed of sale on behalf of a disobedient party, and such act shall have the same effect as if done by the party itself, when a judgment ordering specific performance has become final and executory and the party fails to comply.