Facts:

The case involves Bernarda S. Canonizado as the petitioner and Judge Regina G. Ordonez Benitez, presiding over the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Manila, along with Atty. Cesar R. Canonizado as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on September 27, 1968, which ordered Atty. Canonizado to provide monthly support of P100.00 to Bernarda, starting from October 1964. This decision became final and executory on January 21, 1969. Following this, an order of execution was issued on October 24, 1969, for P27,900.00, but it was recalled to correct the amount. By April 1969, the total amount due for support was determined to be P16,150.00 for the period from October 1964 to April 1969. Subsequent writs of execution issued in 1970 were returned unsatisfied.

On July 11, 1973, Bernarda and Cesar entered into a compromise agreement regarding the arrears in support, which included a moratorium on payments and a co...

Facts:

Chronology of Support Determinations and Court Decisions

• On September 27, 1968, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision directing the respondent to pay a monthly support of P100.00 beginning October 1964, which became final and executory on January 21, 1969.
• Following the final judgment, on October 24, 1969, an order of execution was issued for P27,900.00 and later recalled to allow correction of the computed amount.
• Christina, daughter of the parties, reached the age of majority on October 6, 1967; however, since she was still studying, her support was formally terminated only in April 1969 with arrears computed at P16,150.00 (covering October 1964 to April 1969).

Execution Procedures and Subsequent Motions

• Writs of execution were issued on February 10 and March 30, 1970, in favor of the petitioner and Christina respectively, yet both writs were returned unsatisfied.
• On July 11, 1973, the petitioner and respondent entered into a compromise agreement which included:
• Setting the arrears at P17,200.00 (with a moratorium on its payment).
• An immediate deposit of P700.00 for support from January to July 1973 and subsequent current support of P100.00 per month.
• A clause requiring partial or full payment of arrears upon receipt of a sizable income by the respondent.
• Provision that failure to pay current support for four consecutive months would render the total arrears immediately due.
• An additional agreement to liquidate unpaid support for Christina directly to the petitioner upon receipt of income by the respondent.

Subsequent Enforcement Efforts and Court Orders

• On February 16, 1976, the petitioner filed a motion for execution and contempt, seeking the issuance of a writ of execution for arrears amounting to P17,200.00 for herself and P16,150.00 for Christina.
• The lower court, on February 23, 1976, ordered that upon submission of a verified statement of the total arrears, a writ of execution should be issued.
• Despite the submission on March 15, 1976, the application for the writ was deferred until April 14, 1976, due to an extension given to the respondent to liquidate the arrears.
• Petitioner subsequently filed motions for a warrant of arrest and an alias writ of execution, which were temporarily denied pending a last extension for payment granted on May 14, 1976.
• On July 14, 1976, the lower court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution covering the amounts due for both petitioner and Christina, and scheduled a hearing on contempt for non-payment.
• A writ of execution was finally issued on July 22, 1976. Enforcement of this writ was not pursued immediately because on August 3, 1976, the parties reached a further agreement providing for a partial payment schedule.

Further Developments and Concurrent Petitions

• On April 14, 1977, petitioner again moved for an alias writ of execution based on the previously issued writ.
• On September 14, 1977, the respondent judge denied the motion on the basis that:
• More than seven years had elapsed since the final judgment, rendering the motion for execution invalid under Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
• Christina, having attained majority and being capable of acting on her own behalf, could personally enforce her right to support.
• After a denied motion for reconsideration on October 13, 1978, the petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction on November 21, 1978 (docketed as G.R. No. L-49315), seeking the issuance of an alias writ of execution.
• Meanwhile, in a separate proceeding (docketed as G.R. No. 60966), on January 12, 1982, the petitioner filed a motion requiring the respondent to pay current support beginning February 1978. The respondent opposed this motion, asserting that his obligation to support had terminated and subsequently filed a motion to terminate support.
• The petitioner later filed another petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction on July 5, 1982, to compel the respondent judge to act on her motion for current support and to enjoin the hearing of the motion for termination of support.

Issue:

Whether the respondent judge can be compelled by mandamus to issue an alias writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision ordering the payment of arrearages in support.

• Does the lapse of more than five years (as provided in Rule 39, Section 6) affect the petitioner’s right to execute the judgment for support?
• Is the issuance of the alias writ a ministerial act, devoid of discretionary judicial judgment, given the continuing nature of the support obligation?

Whether the respondent judge may be compelled to act on the petitioner’s motion for payment of current support.

• Can the lower court be mandated to rule on the petitioner's current support claim when the respondent contends that conditions exist (such as the recipient’s improved circumstances) for suspending or terminating such support?
• To what extent does the recipient's changed circumstances (employment, professional status, etc.) influence the demandability of current support under Article 303 of the New Civil Code?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)