Bustos vs. Court of Appeals

Execution of a final and executory judgment in an ejectment case may be suspended when the party ordered ejected subsequently acquires ownership of the property, rendering the issue of possession moot and making execution unjust.

Paulino Fajardo died intestate in 1957, survived by four children: Manuela, Trinidad, Beatriz, and Marcial. In 1964, the heirs executed an extra-judicial partition, and Manuela sold her share to Moses G. Mendoza, the husband of Beatriz. The property was subsequently identified as Lot 284 of the Masantol Cadastre. Trinidad retained physical possession of the land and refused to surrender Manuela's share to Moses.

• Inheritance and Sale: Paulino Fajardo died intestate in 1957. His heirs executed an extra-judicial partition in 1964, wherein Manuela sold her share to Moses G. Mendoza. The property was later identified as Lot 284, which was subsequently subdivided into Lots 284-A and 284-B.
• Partition Case: Moses filed a complaint for partition in 1971 to claim Manuela's 1/4 share, as Trinidad refused to surrender possession. The RTC ruled in favor of Moses in 1989, ordering the segregation and partition of the 1/4 share.
• Subsequent Transfers: During the pendency of the partition case, Trinidad died. Her son, Lucio Fajardo Ignacio, sold Lot 284-B to spouses Viray in 1987. In 1991, Moses sold his rights to the subject land to spouses Bustos.
• Unlawful Detainer: In 1989, spouses Viray filed an unlawful detainer case against spouses Bustos, who were in actual possession as lessees of Trinidad's husband. The MCTC ruled in favor of spouses Viray, and writs of execution and demolition were issued.
• Injunction and Appeals: Spouses Bustos filed a certiorari petition in the RTC to stay the execution, which was dismissed in 1992. On appeal, the Court of Appeals consolidated the injunction appeal and the partition appeal. The CA affirmed the partition decision, declaring Moses (and consequently Bustos) the owner of the 1/4 share, but also affirmed the dismissal of the injunction petition, sustaining the ejectment order on the ground of finality.

• Right to Possess as Owners: Petitioners maintained that they could not be ejected from the land they now legally owned, arguing that the issue of possession is inextricably intertwined with ownership, and their adjudication as owners entitles them to possession.

• Finality of Ejectment Judgment: Respondents countered that the unlawful detainer judgment had become final and executory, entitling them to a ministerial writ of execution for possession, irrespective of the subsequent ruling on ownership.

• Execution of Final Judgment: Whether petitioners may be ejected from the subject property pursuant to a final and executory unlawful detainer judgment, despite having subsequently acquired ownership thereof.

• Execution of Final Judgment: The execution of the final ejectment judgment was suspended. While courts have a ministerial duty to execute final judgments, exceptions exist where execution would be unjust or contrary to the higher interest of justice. Because petitioners acquired ownership of the property, the issue of possession became moot. Ejecting an owner from their own property would result in grave injustice. Possession is a necessary incident of ownership; thus, as lawful owners, petitioners are entitled to possess the land.

• Exceptions to Ministerial Execution of Final Judgments — The ministerial duty to order the execution of a final and executory judgment admits of exceptions, particularly in cases of special and exceptional nature where the higher interest of justice requires suspension, or when facts and circumstances transpiring after the judgment became final would render execution unjust.
• Possession as an Attribute of Ownership — The right to possess is one of the attributes of ownership. A person who cannot exercise the right to possess, along with the other attributes of ownership (use, enjoyment, abuse, accession, disposition, vindication, and fruits), is a crippled owner. Consequently, a declaration of ownership necessarily carries with it the right to possess.

• "An owner who cannot exercise the seven (7) 'juses' or attributes of ownership-the right to possess, to use and enjoy, to abuse or consume, to accessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate and to the fruits is a crippled owner."

• Lipana vs. Development Bank of Rizal, 154 SCRA 257 [1987] — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that the ministerial duty to execute a final judgment admits of exceptions, particularly when facts and circumstances transpire after the judgment becomes final that would render execution unjust.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago