1. Sia vs. Arcenas, Lopez, and Rafanan
G.R. No. 209672-74
January 14, 2015
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Facts:
Due to real property tax delinquencies of Panay Railways, Incorporated over the subject lots, the City
Treasurer of Roxas City auctioned, with petitioner Edmund Sia, as the highest bidder. Petitioner however,
was not able to take possession because of the refusal of City Treasurer to issue a Final Bill of Sale
despite the lapse of the 1 year period. Petitioner filed a special civil action for mandamus, seeking the
issuance of the Final Bill of Sale.
In March 21, 2001, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, and accordingly ordered the City Treasurer to
issue the Final Bill of Sale. Panay Railways appealed to the CA, but the latter ruled affirming the RTC’s
decision in toto. The decision became final and executory upon failure of PRI to file appeal within the
reglementary period.
City Treasurer still refused to issue the Final Bill of Sale, this led to petitioner filing a Motion for Order
divesting PRI, and vesting of title to Edmund Sia. Then petitioner moved for the delivery of possession of
the lots as it were already occupied by third parties, the respondents. Thus a Writ of possession, and
eventually a Writ of Demolition were issued in favor of the petitioner.
Respondents move to quash, essentially contending that the March 21, 2001 Decision in Special Civil
Action sought to be executed arose from a mandamus petition where a writ of possession is proscribed.
They posited that the execution of a final judgment in a mandamus case is similar to the execution of
special judgments as provided in Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. Upon respondents’ appeal to the CA, the latter declared the Writ
of Possession and Writ of Demolition null and void as they were beyond the limits of the March 21, 2001
decision in the Special Civil Action. CA further ruled that since tha SCA is for mandamus, the RTC’s
power is limited to directing compliance with judgment and, in case of refusal, punish with contempt the
person required by law to the same.
Hence,this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly declared the Writs of possession and demolition null and void
Ruling:
Yes,the SC affirmed CA’s decision.
Therefore the petition is without merit. As case law defines, a writ of mandamus is a “command issuing
from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state sovereign, directed to the inferior
court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty
therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or
2. from operation of law. It is employed to compel the performance,when refused, of a ministerial duty,
which, as opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of
facts,in a prescribed manner,in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the
exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done."
In this case, the City Treasurer clearly refused to issue the Final Bill of Sale in petitioner’s favor, despite
the finality of the judgment in SCA, as well as the issuance and service of the Writ of Execution dated
February 28, 2008 commanding him to do so. In view of such refusal, the RTC should have cited the City
Treasurer in contempt in order to enforce obedience to the said judgment. However,instead of simply
doing so, it granted petitioner’s numerous motions.
The judgment in SCA sought to be enforced in the case only declared valid the auction sale where
petitioner bought the subject lots, and accordingly ordered the City Treasurer to issue a Final Bill of Sale
to petitioner. Since the said judgment did not order that the possession of the subject lots be vested unto
petitioner, the RTC substantially varied the terms of the aforesaid judgment and thus, exceeded its
authority in enforcing the same.
