Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17985 September 29, 1962
GIL SN !IEGO "#$ RU%IN SN !IEGO, petitioners,
vs.
T&E &ON. GUSTIN P. MONTES, '($)e, Co(rt o* %+r,t I#,t"#-e o* .(/"-"#, et
"/., respondents.
Isidro T. Almeda for petitioners.
Jose P. Osorio for respondents.
RE0ES, '...L., J.:
Presented before us in this petition for mandamus is the peculiar case of party-
defendants insisting on, and prevailing party-plaintiffs resisting, the eecution of a final
and eecutory decision.
!o understand this peculiarity, "e "ill state briefly facts leading to the controversy.
After trial in Civil Case No. ##$ of the Court of %irst &nstance of Bulacan, on co'plaint
of (ose, Maria and )rbano all surna'ed *de la Cru+*, to recover a parcel of land and
da'ages fro' ,il -an .iego and Rufino -an .iego, the Court /0on. (esus 1. Pere+,
presiding2 rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of "hich reads as follo"s3
&N 4&E5 6% !0E %6RE,6&N,, the Court hereby rendered considers
7udg'ent as follo"s3
/a2 .eclaring the deed of sale, Ehibit 8, null and void9
/b2 6rdering the defendants and third-party plaintiffs to vacate the land in
:uestion upon pay'ent to the' by the plaintiffs and third-party defendants,
"ithin thirty /8$2 days after this decision has beco'e final, of the su' of
!0REE !06)-AN. %&4E 0)N.RE. PE-6- /P8,;$$.$$29
/c2 .is'issing the counterclai' of the third-party defendants9 and
/d2 No pronounce'ent as to costs.
!he court found that the disputed portion of a parcel of land belonged to the plaintiffs
through hereditary succession9 that the defendants built a house on the land in good
faith, having ac:uired the land fro' Catalina Anastacio, 'other of the plaintiffs, by
purchase for P<,$$$.$$. .uring the proceedings, the defendants filed a third-party
co'plaint against said vendor. !he vendor /'other of plaintiffs2 subse:uently died9
hence, herein respondent "ho "ere the plaintiffs, beca'e at the sa'e ti'e third-party
defendants in substitution of their deceased 'other. !he court voided the sale on the
ground that the vendor had no right to the land, but upheld the defense of defendants
as builders in good faith.
6n appeal by the plaintiffs and third-party defendants, the Court of Appeals affir'ed in
toto the lo"er court=s decision, and the sa'e, thereafter, beca'e final and eecutory.
6ver t"o years later, the defendants and third party plaintiffs, "ho "ere in possession
of the parcel of land in litigation, 'oved to eecute paragraph /b2 of the afore:uoted
dispositive portion of the decision in order to collect the su' of P8,;$$.$$ and
thereafter to vacate the pre'ises. !he 'otion "as denied by the court /0on. Agustin P.
Montesa presiding2, and a 'otion for reconsideration "as li>e"ise of no avail 0ence,
the instant petition for mandamus "as filed to co'pel the respondent 7udge to issue
the "rit applied for.1awphl.nt
Petitioners= argu'ent is that the pertinent part of the dispositive portion of the decision
ordains, first, that they vacate the land, and second, that the plaintiffs pay P8,;$$.$$
"ithin 8$ days after this decision beco'es final,
"ith the connecting preposition *upon* un'ista>ably denoting that the second
/pay'ent of inde'nity2 is a condition precedent to the first /vacation of the
pre'ises2. /Me'orandu' for Petitioners, p. ;2
!hey hold the vie" that the respondents should pay the' first before they vacate, and
not vice-versa9 and that they are entitled no" to insist on the pay'ent through a "rit of
eecution.
Respondents, upon the other hand, contend3
/<2 !hat petitioners have no right to the "rit of eecution, because as absolute
o"ners of the land, the respondents have the right, under Article ??@, to
eercise the option to either pay the value of i'prove'ents or de'and
reasonable rent if respondents do not choose to appropriate the building9
/A2 !hat in fact respondents have elected to de'and pay'ent of rentals on
land actually occupied by petitioners= building at !EN PE-6- a 'onth, and
'ade a de'and therefor i''ediately after the finality of the Court of Appeals
decision, because the a'ount of P8,;$$.$$ is eorbitant, so that the land
o"ners choose to allo" petitioners to re'ain on the land9
1
/82 !hat respondents have long suggested to petition that a co''issioner be
appointed to assess the present fair 'ar>et value of the building, ta>ing
depreciation into account9 and
/?2 !hat the denial of the 'otion for eecution is 7ustified because it is
pre'ature and has no legal basis.
5e find the petition 'eritorious. !he 7udg'ent affir'ed by the Court of Appeals, and
no" final, eplicitly ordains the pay'ent by the respondents de la Cru+ of the a'ount
of P8,;$$.$$ *"ithin 8$ days after this decision beco'es final* to petitioners -an
.iego. &f it also orders petitioners to vacate only upon the pay'ent, it did so in
recognition of the right of retention granted to possessor in good faith by Article ;?B of
the Civil Code of the Philippines. !his provision is epressly 'ade applicable to
builders in good faith /Article ??@2. !he right of retention thus granted is 'erely a
security for the enforce'ent of the possessor=s right to inde'nity for the i'prove'ent
co''ents 'ade by hi'. As a result, the possessor in good faith, in retaining the land
and its i'prove'ents pending rei'burse'ent of his useful ependitures, is not bound
pay any rental during the period of retention9 other"ise the value of his security "ould
be i'paired /cf. !ufeis vs. Chunaco /C.A.2, 8B 6.,. A?;;2.
Nor'ally, of course, the lando"ner has the option to either appropriate the
i'prove'ent or to sell the land to the possessor. !his option is no longer open to the
respondent lando"ners because the decision in the for'er suit li'its the' to the first
alternative by re:uiring t petitioner=s to vacate the land /and surrender the i'proved
co''ents2 upon pay'ent of P8,;$$.$$. Evidently, the Courts of %irst &nstance and of
Appeals opined that the respondents suit to recover the property "as an eercise their
right to choose to appropriate the i'prove'ents and pay the inde'nity fied by la".
!he respondents ac:uiesced in this vie", since they did not as> for a 'odification of
the 7udg'ent, and allo"ed it to beco'e final. Conse:uently, they can no longer insist
on selecting another alternative9 nor can they be heard no" to urge that the value of
the inde'nity, set at P8,;$$.$$, is eorbitant for the sa'e reason that the 7udg'ent
fiing that a'ount is no longer sub7ect to alteration.
!he 7udg'ent ordering pay'ent to petitioners of P8,;$$.$$, by "ay of inde'nity,
having beco'e final, and the 8$ days for its pay'ent having elapsed, the court of first
instance has the 'inisterial duty to order its eecution /Culueta vs. Paredes, BA Phil. ;9
Buenaventura vs. ,arcia, #@ Phil. #;D9 A'or vs. (ugo, <# Phil. #$89 4i:uiera vs.
BaraEa #@ Phil. ?;B2. !hat duty is co'pellable by mandamus9 and the eecution is
leviable on any property of respondents de la Cru+, including the land no" in :uestion
and its i'prove'ents.
50ERE%6RE, the "rit prayed for is granted, and the Court of %irst &nstance of
Bulacan is ordered to issue the "rit of eecution in favor of petitioners. Costs against
respondent de la Cru+.
2