Case Digest (G.R. No. 79416)
Facts:
Rosalina Bonifacio, Surviving Wife; and Children Gabriel, Ponciano, Tiburcio, Beatriz, Generosa, Silveria, Leonardo, Felomena, Encarnacion and Leonila, all surnamed Bonifacio v. Hon. Natividad G. Dizon, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Branch XIII, Malolos, Bulacan and Pastora San Miguel, G.R. No. 79416, September 05, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.In 1968, Olimpio Bonifacio filed a complaint before the Court of Agrarian Relations (Fifth Regional District, Branch I-A of Baliwag, Bulacan) seeking the ejectment of Pastora San Miguel from a two-hectare agricultural land in Patubig, Marilao, Bulacan under Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844 (CAR Case No. 2160‑B 68). After trial, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio rendered judgment on September 18, 1970 granting authority to eject the defendant and ordering delivery of possession to plaintiff for personal cultivation; other claims and counterclaims were dismissed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment only by awarding P1,376.00 to private respondent on her counterclaim and otherwise affirmed the trial court decision. Private respondent elevated the case to the Supreme Court, but before resolution Olimpio Bonifacio died on August 7, 1983; counsel did not notify the Court and no substitution was ordered. The Supreme Court En Banc denied Pastora San Miguel’s petition on July 31, 1985, affirming the Court of Appeals.
Thereafter, petitioners — Rosalina Bonifacio (surviving wife) and the named children as heirs of Olimpio — moved for execution of the final judgment before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. A writ of execution issued February 20, 1986; on March 6, 1986 the sheriff reported partial delivery of possession except for the portion occupied by Pastora’s house. Pastora moved to quash the writ; petitioners sought a writ of demolition and to hold her in contempt for alleged re-entry.
On July 15, 1986, respondent Judge Natividad G. Dizon issued a resolution declaring the implementation of the writ of execution null and void and denying the motions for demolition and for contempt. Petitioners filed a certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated November 28, 1986 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 10033, penned by Justice Celso L. Magsino), certified to the Supreme Court the pure question of law whether the favorable judgment obtained by the decedent is inherited by his compulsory heirs. The matter was thus brought to the Court by certification pursuant to Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in relation to Section 5(2)(e), Art. X of the 1973 Constitution and Rule 50, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioners argued respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction by refusing execution, asserting that the ejectment judgment survives the decedent and is enforceable by his heirs as successors‑in‑interest and immediate family members, invoking the doctrine that judg...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Natividad G. Dizon commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring the writ of execution null and void?
- Whether the favorable judgment obtained by the decedent (Olimpio Bonifacio) is inherited by his compulsory heirs and thus may be executed by them.
- Whether the amendment of Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844 by R.A. No. 6389 and the promulgation of P.D. No. 27 prohibit execution of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)