Republic vs.

Hidalgo
GR. No. 161657. October 4, 2007
PRAYER: Certionari and Prohibition

FACTS:
The Office of the President, during the administration President Marcos, wrested possession of the disputed Arlegui
propertylocated at Arlegui St. Malacañang Compound and somehow secured a certificate of title over it without a
conveying deed having been executed to legally justify the cancellation of the old title in the name of private
respondent/property ownerTarcilla Mendozaand the issuance of a new one in the name of petitioner Republic. The
property thereafter became home to 2 former Presidents.

On 2 June 1999, Private respondent filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the title and deed of sale
andreconveyance against the Republic. The case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the Manila RTC
Branch 35 on the ground of state immunity and was re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37), with respondent Vicente A.
Hidalgo as presiding Judge.

For the failure of the Solicitor General to file a required Answer within the period prayed for in his motion for extension
dated 21 May 2003, Judge Hidalgo declared the Republic in default, allowing the plaintiff to present her evidence. In a
decision by default dated August 27, 2003, Mendoza’s petitions were GRANTED and the court ordered the Republic to
pay the private respondent an amount P1,480,627,688 excluding interests, plus a P143,600,000 just compensation. A writ
of executionthereafter followed.

PETITIONER: Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General

The petitioner prayed for certiorari to nullify and set aside the decision dated August 27, 2003. The petitioner gave as
justification the fact that the case involves an over P2 Billion peso judgement against the state, allegedly rendered in
blatant violation of the constitution, law and jurisprudence.
The petitioner also urges the court to nullify the trial court’s order declaring it in default on the ground it was issued in
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.

RESPONDENT:Vicente A. Hidalgo, Presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37
The respondent argued that since the Solicitor general failed to file an Answer within the given period, it is within his
capacity to declare the petitioner in default and to render a judgement by default. The latter also argued that with respect
to the money judgment granted, the respondent Judge maintains that the amount awarded to the plaintiff was based on
testimonies of experts. The amount of damages given, the respondent explains, is within the four corners of the prayer
made in the complaint, i.e., such other relief, just and equitable, under the premises.

ISSUE: WON the respondent court’s issuance of the writ of execution against petitioner is valid

HELD:

No. The assailed trial court’s issuance of the writ of execution against government funds to satisfy its money judgement is
null and void. Consent to be sued does not include the execution of judgement against it. The power of the court ends
when the judgement is rendered.

Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgements.
Judgements against the state generally operate merely to liquidate and establish the plaintiff’s claim in the absence of
express provision.

As for the respondent judge’s issuance ofjudgement for the payment of over P2 Billion pesos, the court held that the latter
went around the explicit command of the rules of court which defines the extent of the relief that may be awarded in a
judgement by default.

WHEREFORE, the court AFFIRMED the issuance of a new certificate of title for private petitioner Mendoza and
MODIFIED the RTC ruling ordering the Respondent to pay a reasonable amount of P20, 000/month beginning July 1975
representing rental until it vacates the property and that the possession returned to Mendoza.
Accordingly, a writ of certionariwas ISSUED in the sense that the respondent judge’s assailed decision of 2003 insofar as
its order of payment of P2 Billion is NULLIFIED as well as the portion assessing the petitioner for cost of suit.

The order of the respondent court for the issuance of a writ of execution against government funds was also held NULL
AND VOID.