G.R. No. 26423 - Santos vs. Court of 1st Instance of Cavite

Petitioners: Genaro Cubar, Flora Cubar, Narciso Cubar, Cresencia Cubar, Rosalio Cubar, Petra T. Vda. de Cubar, Felomino Cubar, Fausto Cubar, et al.
Respondents: Hon. Rafael T. Mendoza, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch VI), together with private respondents Victorriano Enad, Rafael Enad, Simon Veloso, and Erlinda Ponce.
Nature of the case: A special civil action of certiorari and prohibition with a writ of preliminary injunction seeking to annul a court order that set aside an earlier order for the issuance of a writ of execution in a civil case (Civil Case No. R-15607).

On September 22, 1976, petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch V, seeking the nullification of certain documents allegedly executed by them.
The petitioners, described as “illiterate mountain people,” claimed they were misled into signing documents they believed were for a right of way in favor of the government, purportedly for the construction of a road to a mining site.
They were induced by the promise that, once operational, each landowner would receive a royalty of ₱30 per ton of minerals passing through their lands.

The documents, as it later emerged, were not instruments of granting a right-of-way to the government but authorizations permitting private respondents to enter the petitioners’ lands for the exploration of rich rock phosphate deposits.
On the basis of these documents, the Bureau of Mines issued permits to the private respondents to exploit and develop the petitioners’ mineral resources to the exclusion of the owners.

In response, private respondents denied that the documents were forcibly or fraudulently executed, arguing that they were voluntarily signed by the petitioners.
After a hearing, on October 1, 1979, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the said documents null and void and adjudged private respondents liable to pay damages to the petitioners.
A copy of the decision was served on November 23, 1979 to Atty. Romeo Gonzaga, the private respondents' counsel of record, via his wife at his given address, establishing notice of the judgment.

Petitioners, contending that the decision was already final and executory, filed a motion on January 7, 1980, for the issuance of a writ of execution.
The trial court granted the motion through an Order issued on January 8, 1980.
On January 12, 1980, Branch V became vacant due to the appointment of Judge Mariano A. Zosa to the Court of Appeals.
On January 14, 1980, private respondents, now represented by a new attorney, Atty. Ponciano H. Alivio, filed a motion for reconsideration of the writ of execution arguing that the decision was not final and executory due to allegedly defective service.
The motion was resolved by Branch VI, presided over by Judge Rafael T. Mendoza (the respondent judge), who on January 28, 1980, issued an order setting aside the Order of Execution and quashing the writ issued.

Petitioners, objecting to the respondent judge’s action and arguing that proper and sufficient service had been effected, subsequently filed the special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.
The petition sought not only the annulment of the order issued by Judge Mendoza but also a prohibition on any further action in the case until further orders from the Court of Appeals or the proper appellate court.

Whether the service of the trial court’s decision on Atty. Romeo Gonzaga’s wife, at his given address, constitutes valid notice to the private respondents when the party is represented by counsel.
Whether a counsel’s change of residence without a formal withdrawal from representation affects the validity of service.

Whether the decision of the trial court, rendered on October 1, 1979, was already final and executory at the time the motion for a writ of execution was granted on January 8, 1980.
Whether the absence of an appeal within the reglementary period confirms the decision’s finality.

Whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in issuing the order setting aside the writ of execution based on the motion for reconsideration submitted by private respondents.
Whether the issuance of the order by the respondent judge was supported by any compelling legal or factual justification.