MANOTOK REALTY INC v. TECSON

FACTS

In a complaint filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession against defendants, CFI ruled declaring respondent Nilo Madlangawa a builder in good faith. CA affirmed and SC dismissed for lack of merit.

Petitioner filed with the trial court motion for the approval of the petitioner's exercise of option and for satisfaction of judgment(that is final and executory) which was dismissed. Hence this petition for mandamus. However, since there is a pending case (Manotok v. NHA) involving the expropriation of the land in question it is better to suspend the current case til after the outcome of the expropriation proceedings is done. Moreover, a fire engulfed the Tambunting estate covering the disputed area of the land.The expropriation case was not granted and the law that provided for such was declared unconstitutional.

Due to the fire, petitioner is contending that the execution of the decision must now involve the delivery of possession.

ISSUE

Whether or not there should be a delivery of possession by the respondent to the petitioner

RULING

When the decision of the trial court became final and executory, it becomes incumbent upon the respondent judge to issue the necessary writ for the execution of the same. 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 the petitioner.