G.R. No. L-24346 June 29, 1968
JUAN E. TUASON, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch I) and JUANA T. DE LA VIÑA, respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Case No. 21954, rendered a decision on September 29, 1956, condemning respondent Juana T. de la Viña and other lessees to vacate the lots leased from petitioner Juan E. Tuason, remove the buildings thereon, and return possession to Tuason, and to pay specified amounts. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on August 31, 1960. Upon return of the records, Tuason secured a writ of execution. The Sheriff levied upon and sold De la Viña’s personal property and later levied on three buildings belonging to her on the premises. De la Viña challenged these actions in the Court of Appeals, which upheld the execution and sale of personality but enjoined the sale of real properties until proper notice. After new notices, the Sheriff sold the buildings to Tuason on September 28, 1962. De la Viña moved to set aside the sale but withdrew to file a separate civil action for annulment, which was instituted on September 17, 1963 (Civil Case No. 54997), where her application for a preliminary injunction was denied. Tuason obtained a final deed of sale and secured an alias writ of execution on July 13, 1964. De la Viña’s petition for prohibition against this writ was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on August 25, 1964. She then moved to quash the alias writ in the respondent court. Respondent Judge Arca, on August 29, 1964, authorized her to stay in one house, but this order was set aside on September 22. A third alias writ was issued on September 26. Upon reconsideration, the respondent judge set aside its September 22 order and restrained further action on the alias writs. Tuason moved on November 28, 1964 for leave to demolish the buildings. By order of December 17, 1964, the respondent judge denied the motion for demolition, citing sentimental value and due process. On February 3, 1965, upon ex parte motion, the respondent judge ordered the sheriff and Tuason to place De la Viña in possession of one house of her choice. Tuason’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated December 17, 1964 and February 3, 1965, which denied the motion for demolition and ordered possession of a house restored to the judgment debtor, thereby impeding the execution of a final judgment.

RULING

The writ of certiorari is granted. The orders of February 3, 1965 and December 17, 1964 are annulled and set aside. The respondent court is ordered to grant the order of demolition and to cause the writs of execution to be forthwith completely carried out. The Supreme Court held that the final judgment, affirmed in 1960, directing De la Viña to vacate the lot, remove her buildings, and restore possession to Tuason, stands unimplemented. The respondent court’s actions, on various pretexts, constituted a plain abuse of discretion by evading the enforcement of a final judgment, discrediting judicial processes. The claim of ownership or sentimental value of the buildings is irrelevant, as the final adjudication may no longer be altered. De la Viña had ample opportunity to be heard before the judgment became final, so the due process claim is a perversion. Any prejudice can be compensated by damages. Her belated contention that the buildings are not on Tuason’s land is barred by estoppel, as it was not invoked in the main case or in prior appellate proceedings. Costs are against respondent De la Viña.