G.R. No. 193455 - National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Ramoran

In Civil Case No. 5111 before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V, petitioners Agustin and Leoncia Dormitorio sued private respondent Serafin Lazalita for ejectment, alleging that Lot No. 2, Block 16 of the Municipality of Victorias subdivision belonged to them.
On September 5, 1961, the court rendered judgment in favor of the Dormitorios, ordering Lazalita to vacate the property, pay P20.00 monthly as rental, and attorney’s fees. Pursuant to an ex parte motion by the Dormitorios, a writ of execution was issued to enforce that decision.

In Civil Case No. 6553, the same parties submitted an “Agreed Stipulation of Facts” on February 12, 1965, which recited:

Lazalita’s 1948 purchase of Lot No. 1, Block 16 for P1.00 per square meter, his eight years of peaceful possession, construction of improvements valued at P5,000.00, and issuance of Certificate of Title No. T-23098.
The Dormitorios’ 1955 purchase of Lot No. 2, Block 16 for P1.00 per square meter, their non-possession of the land, and the Municipality’s survey discovery that Lazalita occupied the lot actually sold to the Dormitorios.
The conflict, attempts at municipal mediation, and the commitment by the Dormitorios to reimburse Lazalita for transfer expenses or assign him another lot in lieu of enforcing the 1961 ejectment decision.

The court, acting on the stipulation as a compromise, rendered a new judgment formally stating that the 1961 decision was “no longer enforceable and executory,” thus superseding Civil Case No. 5111.

Lazalita filed a petition before Judge Fernandez to set aside the writ of execution in Case No. 5111, invoking the 1965 compromise judgment as grounds.
Respondent Judge granted the petition, concluding that the later judgment evidenced an animus novandi and rightly set aside the prior writ.
The Dormitorios then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that Judge Fernandez committed grave abuse of discretion and that certiorari was a proper remedy.

Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the writ of execution issued under Civil Case No. 5111.
Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the order setting aside the writ of execution.
Whether the Agreed Stipulation of Facts and the resulting February 12, 1965 judgment constituted a valid novation or compromise superseding the earlier ejectment decision.
Whether petitioners were denied due process by not being given notice or opportunity to be heard before the issuance of the order setting aside the writ.