Case Digest | Manotok Realty v. Tecson
Manotok Realty v. Tecson
164 SCRA 587
Facts:
After a denial of its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed the present petition for mandamus alleging that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to exercise option and for execution of judgment on the grounds that under Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, the exercise of option belongs to the owner of the property, who is the petitioner herein, and that upon finality of judgment, the prevailing party is entitled, as a matter of right, to its execution which is only a ministerial act on the part of the respondent judge.
On April 15, 1978, the private respondent filed his comment on the petition alleging that the same has already become moot and academic for two reasons: first, fire gutted not only the house of the private respondent but the majority of the houses in Tambunting Estate; and second, as a result of the said fire, the then First Lady and Metro Manila Governor Imelda R. Marcos has placed the disputed area under her Zonal Improvement Project, thereby allowing the victims of the fire to put up new structures on the premises, so that the willingness and readiness of the petitioner to exercise the alleged option can no longer be exercised since the subject-matter thereof has been extinguished by the fire. Furthermore, the President of the Philippines has already issued a Presidential Decree for the expropriation of certain estates in Metro Manila including the Tambunting Estate. Therefore, the beneficient and humanitarian purpose of the Zonal Improvement Project and the expropriation proceeding would be defeated if petitioner is allowed to exercise an option which would result in the ejectment of the private respondent.
As stated earlier, the petitioner argues that since the judgment of the trial court has already become final, it is entitled to the execution of the same and that moreover, since the house of the private respondent was gutted by fire, the execution of the decision would now involve the delivery of possession of the disputed area by the private respondent to the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent has the right of retention?
Held:
The respondent judge is hereby ordered to immediately issue a writ of execution ordering the private respondent to vacate the disputed premises and deliver possession of the same to the petitioner.
Thus, the repairs and improvements introduced by the said respondents after the complaint was filed cannot be considered to have been built in good faith, much less, justify the denial of the petitioner’s fai-rn of option. Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore, the basis for private respondent’s right to retain the premises has already been extinguished without the fault of the petitioner, there is no other recourse for the private respondent but to vacate the premises and deliver the same to herein petitioner.
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Engreso v. De la Cruz
- Case Digest | Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Anulina Bogacki v. Hon. Sancho Inserto
- Property Case Digest | Solid Manila Corporation v. Bio Hong Trading C., Inc.
- Property Case Digest | Edgardo De Jesus, et al v. Court of Appeals and Primitiva Felipe De Jesus
- Case Digest | Titong v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. City of Pasig
- Case Digest | China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Director, Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals
