Martinez v. Martin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case stems from a dispute over possession of parcels of land in Antipolo City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 31527 and 31528, now TCT No. N-67845. Following a Supreme Court decision in Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA, an alias writ of execution was issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, granting possession of portions of these lots to petitioner Antonio Martinez and his co-parties. A Certificate of Delivery of Possession was executed, attesting to the delivery of 86.26 hectares to petitioner. The RTC subsequently ordered the ousting of any remaining guards or developers of Natalia Realty, Inc. from the premises. Procedural History: Despite the initial execution and delivery of possession, petitioner filed a motion for a new alias writ of execution in October 2006, alleging Natalia Realty, Inc.'s non-compliance. The RTC denied this motion in September 2007, finding that the prior writ had already been fully satisfied. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the RTC to issue another writ. The Supreme Court remanded this petition to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated April 30, 2012, denied the mandamus petition, ruling that it was premature as the RTC had not yet resolved petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and that the proper remedy for alleged non-compliance was a contempt proceeding. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA in a Resolution dated July 25, 2012. The Petition: Petitioner Antonio Martinez filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. He seeks to compel the RTC to issue another alias writ of execution and have it immediately executed. The core arguments revolve around whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy when a motion for reconsideration is pending before the lower court and whether the prior writ of execution had indeed been fully satisfied. Petitioner contends that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for mandamus without considering the alleged continued refusal of Natalia Realty, Inc. to comply with the original writ.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus for lack of merit, considering the pendency of a motion for reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Whether a petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the issuance of another alias writ of execution when a prior writ has already been fully satisfied and implemented, and what recourse is available for alleged non-compliance. Whether contempt proceedings are the appropriate recourse for alleged non-compliance with a writ of execution that has been fully satisfied, and whether the petitioner demonstrated the lack of other adequate remedies.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of mandamus: The Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy employed to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The CA correctly dismissed the petition as premature because the petitioner filed it while a motion for reconsideration was still pending before the RTC, and no recognized exceptions applied. On the need for another alias writ of execution and the remedy for non-compliance: The Court found that the February 20, 2004 Alias Writ of Execution had already been fully implemented and satisfied. Consequently, there was no need to issue another alias writ. The Court agreed with the CA that the petitioner's recourse for any alleged refusal or continued non-compliance by the private respondent was to initiate contempt proceedings. On the remedy for non-compliance and the prerequisites for mandamus: Citing jurisprudence, the Court clarified that if a losing party refuses to deliver possession after a writ of execution, the sheriff should dispossess them. If the losing party re-enters or disturbs possession, contempt proceedings may be initiated. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, a prerequisite for availing the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus will not lie if there is a pending motion for reconsideration before the lower court, absent any recognized exceptions. Furthermore, the remedy for refusal to comply with a writ of execution that has already been fully satisfied is contempt proceedings, not the issuance of another alias writ.