Evangelista v. De la Rosa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an illegal detainer case initiated by Eugenio Evangelista against Dolores Kishimoto. The Municipal Court of Manila ruled in favor of Evangelista, ordering the restitution of the premises and awarding monthly rental payments of P80 from June 1, 1945, until restitution, along with costs. 2. Procedural History: Following the Municipal Court's decision, Kishimoto appealed the judgment, leading to the case being docketed as civil case No. 71376 in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Before trial in the Court of First Instance, Evangelista filed a motion for execution of the judgment, citing Kishimoto's alleged failure to pay rent for September and October 1945. Kishimoto opposed this motion, asserting attempts to pay and depositing P240 with the clerk of court for rent covering October, November, and December 1945. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Eugenio Evangelista seeks a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, directing the respondent Judge to order the execution of the judgment in civil case No. 71376. Evangelista argues that the respondent judge neglected a ministerial duty by denying his motion for execution. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondent judge did not err, as the movant (Evangelista) failed to present evidence to support his motion for execution, thereby implicitly admitting the material allegations of the opposition, including the attempted payment and deposit of rent.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge neglected to perform a ministerial duty in denying the motion for execution. Whether the petitioner, by filing a motion for execution based on unverified allegations without offering proof and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to present evidence, admitted the material and relevant allegations of the opposition.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is denied. The respondent Judge did not neglect to perform any act specifically enjoined by law as his ministerial duty in denying the motion for execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge neglected to perform a ministerial duty in denying the motion for execution: The Court held that the respondent Judge did not neglect his duty. The denial of the motion for execution was justified because the petitioner, as the movant, failed to substantiate his claims. The motion was based on facts not appearing of record, and the petitioner did not present any evidence, such as affidavits or depositions, to support his allegations. Furthermore, he did not afford the opposing party an opportunity to present evidence in rebuttal. This failure to present evidence is crucial in proceedings where a motion is based on facts outside the existing record. On the issue of whether the petitioner admitted the material and relevant allegations of the opposition by failing to present evidence: The Court applied the principle governing judgment on the pleadings, as established in Bauermann vs. Casas and La Yebana Company vs. Sevilla. It held that a party who prays for judgment on the pleadings or files a motion based on facts not of record, without offering proof as to the truth of his own allegations and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to introduce evidence, must be understood to admit the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party. In this case, the petitioner, by submitting his motion for execution without proof and without allowing the respondent to present evidence, was deemed to have admitted the respondent's allegations, including her attempts to pay the rent and the petitioner's refusal to accept it. The Court also considered the deposit of P240 made by the respondent, applying P80 of it to the September rent, despite the petitioner's motion for execution based on non-payment for that month.
Main Doctrine
A party moving for execution of judgment based on facts not appearing of record, without offering proof in support of its allegations and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to present evidence, must be deemed to have admitted the truth of all material and relevant allegations of the opposing party.