G.R. No. 72746 - Canonizado vs. Benitez

The petitioner, Bernarda S. Canonizado, and the private respondent, Atty. Cesar R. Canonizado, were married but later separated.
On March 13, 1956, the petitioner filed an action for support against her estranged husband in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.
The trial court granted support for their minor child, Christina, at P100.00 monthly but denied support for the petitioner, citing her gainful employment.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which on September 30, 1960, modified the trial court's decision, granting support for both the minor child and the petitioner at P100.00 monthly each.

A writ of execution was issued, but the respondent filed an action to restrain the sale of certain properties, claiming loss of ownership.
On February 23, 1963, the trial court declared the conveyance of these properties as simulated and ordered the sheriff to proceed with the auction sale.
The decision became final after the respondent withdrew his appeal.

An alias writ of execution was issued on March 1, 1963, but was not fully satisfied due to an order exempting the respondent's law books and office equipment from levy.

On September 9, 1964, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court awarded arrearages in support pendente lite to both the petitioner and her daughter, plus current monthly support for the daughter at P150.00 beginning October 1964.
This decision was affirmed on appeal, with the modification that the petitioner also receive P100.00 monthly support beginning October 1964. The decision became final and executory on January 21, 1969.

A writ of execution was issued on July 22, 1976, for the collection of P16,150.00 for Christina's support and P17,200.00 for the petitioner's arrearages.
These amounts remained unpaid due to a series of compromise agreements for deferment and moratorium.

On April 4, 1977, the petitioner filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, which was denied by the respondent judge due to the lapse of more than five years.
The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court on November 21, 1978, seeking enforcement of the support in arrears.
On July 5, 1982, another petition was filed, asking the respondent judge to act on the petitioner's motion for current support.

The Supreme Court dismissed the second petition (G.R. No. 60966) but granted the first petition (G.R. No. L-49315), ordering the issuance of an alias writ of execution for the support in arrears from 1956 to 1972.
The Court noted that the respondent judge had delayed implementing the writ, possibly due to pending motions to terminate support and restrain levy on exempt properties.

The private respondent was fined P500.00 for contempt due to his failure to comply with the Court's orders and submit a memorandum on time.
The respondent judge was directed to enforce the alias writ of execution and collect the arrearages in support.

Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the petitioner's motion for an alias writ of execution due to the lapse of more than five years.
Whether the writ of execution for support in arrears from 1956 to 1972 should be enforced despite pending motions to terminate support and restrain levy.
Whether the private respondent should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's orders.
Whether legal interest should be awarded on the amounts due from 1956.