Case Digest (G.R. No. 104133)
Facts:
Spouses Emilio Abinujar and Milagros M. Lana, petitioners, v. The Court of Appeals and Spouses Santiago Ramiro and Florentina Ramiro, respondents, G.R. No. 104133, April 18, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court.On October 10, 1987, petitioners executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase in favor of private respondents covering a residential house in Sampaloc, Manila; petitioners failed to redeem within the agreed four months because of financial reverses. On October 24, 1989, private respondents filed an ejectment action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of the City of Manila, docketed Civil Case No. 130352‑CV.
On December 27, 1989 the parties executed a judicial compromise; the MTC approved it by order dated March 15, 1990. The approved compromise set a schedule of cash installments (P50,000 on Jan. 31, 1990; P10,000 on Feb. 28; P10,000 on Mar. 31; and monthly smaller amounts thereafter) and contained a clause that plaintiffs would be “entitled to a writ of execution” upon defendants’ failure to pay three consecutive payments.
Private respondents filed a motion for execution on April 15, 1990 for alleged failure to pay the first three installments. Petitioners sought correction of a typographical error (changing a P10,000 September installment to P5,000); the MTC granted that correction on April 25, 1990. Petitioners later sought to have postdated checks they deposited with the court turned over to respondents (Aug. 17, 1990); respondents opposed and said they would not renew the compromise (Aug. 23, 1990). The MTC denied respondents’ motions for execution filed April 15 and June 26, 1990.
On October 12, 1990 respondents filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 95470) to compel issuance of the writ; by resolution dated November 5, 1990 the Court referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila. After petitioners moved to dismiss, the RTC, on March 14, 1991, denied the motion and issued a resolution commanding the MTC to issue a writ of execution enforcing the compromise. The MTC, in compliance, ordered issuance of a writ on March 27, 1991; a Sheriff’s “Notice to Voluntarily Vacate the Premises” was served on April 11, 1991.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO and injunction in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 24683). The Court of Appeals dism...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a resolution commanding the Metropolitan Trial Court to issue a writ of execution?
- Did the Metropolitan Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution and the Sheriff’s notice to vacate?
- If execution was proper, was the proper mode of enforcement a writ for delivery/restitution under Section 13, Rule 39, or an execution of a money judgment under Section ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)