Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25897)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Decision rendered in 1976; the applicable constitution for analysis is the 1973 Philippine Constitution. The case turns on civil procedure principles—execution, modification or supersession of judgments by subsequent agreements, novation/animus novandi, res judicata, and procedural due process (notice and opportunity to be heard).
Procedural Posture
Petitioners filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge for setting aside the writ of execution issued to enforce the judgment in Civil Case No. 5111. Respondents opposed, asserting that a later agreed stipulation of facts and resulting judgment in Civil Case No. 6553 had the effect of superseding the earlier judgment, thereby rendering execution improper.
Factual Background (summary of stipulation)
The parties had competing claims to lots in Victorias, Negros Occidental. Lazalita purchased and occupied a lot, improved it, and obtained a certificate of title. The Dormitorios purchased an adjacent lot from the municipality and obtained a separate title, but initially did not take actual possession. The Dormitorios sued Lazalita in Civil Case No. 5111 and obtained judgment ordering Lazalita to vacate and pay rent. Lazalita did not appeal but later brought an action against the municipality (joined the Dormitorios) to protect his improvements and their value. The municipality offered to settle by assigning another lot to Lazalita or reimbursing him for transfer expenses and moving costs.
Agreed Stipulation and Subsequent Judgment (Civil Case No. 6553)
In Civil Case No. 6553 the parties submitted an "Agreed Stipulation of Facts" detailing ownership history, possession, improvements, and the municipality’s willingness to settle by providing another lot or payment for transfer. The parties expressly prayed that judgment be rendered on the basis of the agreed stipulation. The trial court rendered judgment “in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreed Stipulation of Facts,” thereby producing a later decision that, by the parties’ agreement, adopted terms that altered the prior conflicts between them.
Judge’s Action to Set Aside Writ of Execution and Rationale
Upon being informed of the later judgment, respondent Judge Fernandez granted Lazalita’s petition to set aside the writ of execution issued to enforce the judgment in Civil Case No. 5111. The judge concluded that the later decision—arrived at through compromise and reflected in the agreed stipulation—manifested an animus novandi (intent to novate) and therefore superseded the earlier judgment. The order setting aside the writ was affirmed through denial of a motion for reconsideration.
Legal Principle: Effect of Subsequent Agreement and Animus Novandi
The Court held that when parties, after a final judgment, enter into a subsequent agreement that clearly manifests an intention to replace the original obligations (animus novandi), the new agreement can supersede the prior judgment and render its execution inappropriate. The decision relied on precedents recognizing that agreements filed in an ejectment or similar case can create new rights and obligations which supersede prior judgments, and that when execution would contradict the parties’ subsequent compromise, the court may modify or refuse execution to harmonize the outcome with justice and the newly established facts.
Legal Principle: Compromise, Novation, and Res Judicata
The Court treated the later judgment based on the parties’ compromise as having res judicata effect between the parties; because Civil Case No. 6553 embodied the parties’ agreed terms and a resulting judgment, it bound the parties and superseded the earlier decision relied upon to justify execution. The Court cited precedents holding that settlements producing judgments can operate as novation or otherwise extinguish prior obligations where there is clear intent to substitute new terms for old.
Procedural Due Process and Notice Issues
Petitioners argued they were not given notice and opportunity to be heard before the writ was set aside. The Court found no denial of due process because the order setting aside execution was the subject of a motion for reconsideration, which petitioners filed and which was denied. The C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-25897)
Case Citation and Court
- Reported at 164 Phil. 381; Second Division; G.R. No. L-25897; Decision rendered August 21, 1976.
- Decision authored by Acting Chief Justice Fernando.
- Concurrence noted: Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ.
Procedural Posture
- Petitioners: Agustin Dormitorio and Leoncia D. Dormitorio (hereafter “petitioners”).
- Respondents: Honorable Jose Fernandez, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V, Bacolod City (hereafter “respondent Judge”), and private respondent Serafin Lazalita.
- Relief sought by petitioners: Writ of certiorari to annul an order by respondent Judge setting aside a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 5111.
- Private respondent filed a petition (Annex E) praying that the writ of execution be set aside, alleging a later decision and an agreed stipulation of facts in Civil Case No. 6553 rendered the earlier decision unenforceable.
- The respondent Judge granted the petition to set aside the writ of execution; petitioners filed certiorari challenging that order.
Core Factual Background (as stipulated and set forth in the record)
- The matter involves two civil cases before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental: Civil Case No. 5111 and Civil Case No. 6553.
- Civil Case No. 5111: Earlier decision (including an order for issuance of a writ of execution based on a decision dated September 5, 1961) against private respondent Serafin Lazalita in favor of petitioners (Dormitorios), which resulted in a writ of execution later issued (submitted as Annex F).
- Civil Case No. 6553: Later action in which the parties submitted an "Agreed Stipulation of Facts" that became the basis of a judgment dated February 12, 1965, and which private respondent contended superseded the earlier decision and rendered it no longer enforceable or executory.
- Agreed Stipulation of Facts (material points as contained in the record):
- Municipality of Victorias owned and subdivided Lots Nos. 102, 120, 138 and 102-New into small lots for sale at P1.00 per square meter, purchasable in cash or in ten-year installments.
- On December 7, 1948, Lazalita purchased Lot No. 1, Block 16, area 230 square meters, payable in installment at P1.00 per square meter; upon full payment in 1958, a deed of definite sale and Certificate of Title No. T-23098 were issued to him.
- From February 7, 1948, and for about eight continuous years thereafter, Lazalita was in full and peaceful possession of the land, introduced permanent and valuable improvements (fruit trees and a house of strong materials valued at P5,000.00).
- Lazalita was placed in possession by municipal agents; there was no change in the location described in his certificate.
- About 1955, petitioners Dormitorios purchased Lot 2, Block 16, area 343 square meters, in cash at P1.00 per square meter and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title T-18189, but they had not taken actual possession up to the present.
- On December 12, 1958, the Dormitorios brought an ejectment suit against Lazalita (Civil Case No. 5111); a municipal surveyor reported that the lot sold to Lazalita was converted into a municipal road ("Jover Street") and that the lot occupied by Lazalita was supposed to be Lot No. 2 sold to Dormitorios; the Court rendered judgment in favor of Dormitorios in Case No. 5111, ordering Lazalita to vacate and pay monthly rental P20.00 plus attorney's fees.
- Lazalita did not appeal from the judgment in Case No. 5111; thereafter he brought the action in Case No. 6553 against the Municipality of Victorias and joined Dormitorios as formal parties because of the value of his improvements and building on what was ascertained to be Lot No. 2 (the lot purchased by Dormitorios).
- Present fair market value of residential lots in Poblacion of Victorias ranged between P15.00 to P25.00 per square meter; lots in controversy saleable at P20.00 per square meter.
- The Municipality offered to amicably settle by giving Lazalita another lot (if subdivision opened) or pay him the amount necessary for him to acquire another lot and for expenses of transferring his house.
- In Civil Case No. 6553 the parties prayed that judgment be rendered on the basis of the agreed stipulation of facts; the dispositive portion declares: "judgment is hereby rendered in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreed Stipulation of Facts."
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions (as reflected in record)
- Petitioners sought certiorari contending that respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the writ of execution issued pursuant to the earlier decision (Civil Case No. 5111).
- Petitioners also argued they were not informed of the petition filed by private respondent to set aside the writ of execution and that they were denied