Abaga v. Panes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Eliseo and Rogelia Panes (respondents) filed a complaint for specific performance against spouses Norberto and Calixta Abaga (petitioners). The respondents alleged that the petitioners had assigned to them one-half of a 255-square meter lot located at No. 20, South CEMBO, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City. This assignment was in exchange for the respondents' building permit, which the petitioners intended to use for constructing their house on the other half of the lot. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 142, Makati City, ruled in favor of the respondents on August 9, 1990, ordering the petitioners to execute a Deed of Assignment for one-half of the lot and to pay attorney's fees and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision with modification, reducing the attorney's fees. A petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioners with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 107198) was denied and became final. Subsequently, the RTC issued an order on September 22, 1997, directing the petitioners to execute a Deed of Assignment for 72 square meters of the lot, accounting for a portion expropriated by the local government. After the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration and a subsequent motion to have the Clerk of Court execute the deed, the respondents filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted the petition for mandamus, ordering the trial court to issue a writ of execution for the Clerk of Court or another person to execute a Deed of Assignment for one-half of the remaining 144 square meter portion of the property, at the petitioners' cost, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. This petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the trial court erred in denying the respondents' motion to compel the execution of the deed, thereby preventing the enforcement of a final and executory judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to execute the final and executory judgment. Whether the trial court committed a reversible error of law in denying the motion to order the Clerk of Court or any person to execute the Deed of Assignment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58941 in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus: The Court held that mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, board, corporation, or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty which results from their official station or from operation of law. For mandamus to lie, the duty sought to be compelled must be a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one, and the petitioner must show a well-defined, clear, and certain right. In this case, the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 89-3269 had long become final and executory, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court. Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that execution shall issue as a matter of right upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal. When an appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, execution may be applied for in the court of origin. The principle is that final and executory judgments must be executed as a matter of right, making it a ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. The trial court has the duty to see to it that the claim of the prevailing party is fully satisfied. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in granting the writ of mandamus. On the issue of whether the trial court committed a reversible error of law in denying the motion to order the Clerk of Court or any person to execute the Deed of Assignment: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that in denying respondents' motion, the trial court deprived respondents of a right enjoined by law. The trial court apparently lost sight of Section 10(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that if a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance, deliver deeds, or perform any other specific act, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court, and the act when so done shall have like effects as if done by the party. In Caluag v. Pecson, it was ruled that where the judgment directs the losing party to execute a conveyance, these acts can be performed by other persons upon his refusal to comply. The court shall appoint another person to perform the act, which shall be done at the expense of the losing party, and the effect shall be as if it were done by the losing party himself. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error of law in issuing the assailed writ of mandamus, as there was a clear showing that the trial court had a ministerial duty to see to it that its judgment is executed.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus may issue to compel a court to execute a final and executory judgment, as the execution of such judgments is a ministerial duty of the court. When a party fails to comply with a judgment directing a specific act, the court may direct the act to be done by another person at the cost of the disobedient party.