SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237150. April 16, 2018.]
LINA RAMOS CANTORIA, petitioner, vs.SUSANA C. GONZALES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 237150 (Lina Ramos Cantoria v. Susana C. Gonzales)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the August 25, 2017 Decision 1 and January 31, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144157 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in reviving the May 5, 2004 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija in Civil Case No. 2396 only with respect to the monetary awards adjudged against petitioner Lina Ramos Cantoria (petitioner).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 2396 could no longer be enforced in so far as the possession of the subject property is concerned, due to the existence of supervening events. Case law states that the occurrence of a supervening event, being an exception to the principle of immutability of judgments, effectively amends or sets aside a final and executory judgment. However, to properly invoke the said exception, it must first be established that the event transpired after the judgment has become final and executory, and that the same affects or changes the substance of the judgment and renders its execution inequitable. 3 In this case, the issuance of the Resolution dated July 23, 2008 by former Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman, as well as the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board dated December 29, 1997 substantially affected the authority of respondent Susana C. Gonzales to demand the ejectment of petitioner from the subject property, thereby rendering the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 2396 with respect to the possession of the subject property inequitable.
The CA also correctly held that the judgment involving the monetary awards should nonetheless be enforced, considering that the occurrence of the supervening events did not affect the same but only touched upon the issue on possession of the subject property.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 37-56. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza (now Presiding Justice of the CA) with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Renato C. Francisco concurring.
2.Id. at 57-59.
3. See Mercury Drug Corporation v. Spouses Huang, G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017.