THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196481. April 19, 2017.]
HEIRS OF ELADIO VILLARAN, NAMELY, ANDREA VILLARAN, ET AL., ROGELIO AMADOR, ROGELIO PASAGE, ELMER CASIDSID AND NEMESIO RAYA, petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO VILLARAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 19, 2017, which reads as follows: acEHCD
"G.R. No. 196481 (Heirs of Eladio Villaran, namely, Andrea Villaran, et al., Rogelio Amador, Rogelio Pasage, Elmer Casidsid and Nemesio Raya vs. Heirs of Estanislao Villaran). — The instant Petition 1 stemmed from an action for recovery of possession filed by Estanislao Villaran (Estanislao) against Eladio Villaran, Rogelio Amador, Rogelio Pasage, Eddie Jarquio, Elmer Casidsid, Bernaldo Lachica, Nemesio Raya, Graciano Palomar, Salvacio Salibio, Francisca Pasage and Eufrocina Jarquio (appellees) way back November 11, 1974, asserting that he is the owner of a parcel of land located at Looc, Cardona, Rizal; and that the appellees entered the land without his consent and constructed their houses thereon. The trial court dismissed the complaint but on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court's order and ruled in favor of Estanislao. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court which denied the petition for review. Entry of judgment was made on May 18, 1989. 2
After the transmittal of the records of the case to the court a quo, Estanislao promptly filed a motion for execution, which was granted by the trial court on April 6, 1990. The corresponding writ of execution was issued on August 17, 1990. However, the appellees refused to vacate the premises. 3
On September 21, 1990, Estanislao filed a motion for a writ of demolition which was granted by the trial court but said writ was returned unsatisfied. Subsequently, upon motion of Estanislao on February 21, 1992, an alias writ of demolition was accordingly issued on June 16, 1992; but still, the appellees refused to comply. The appellees questioned the alias writ of demolition before the CA with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Initially, the TRO was granted but on January 10, 1995, the CA dismissed the petition and lifted the TRO. Entry of judgment was issued on November 22, 1995. 4
On April 7, 1999, counsel for Estanislao filed a motion praying for the issuance of an alias writ of execution, an alias writ of demolition and a request for a special sheriff which was granted by the trial court. 5
Another motion dated October 29, 2002 was filed by Estanislao for the issuance of an alias writ of demolition. This time, the appellees opposed alleging that the same was filed beyond the five-year period or barely seven years from the Entry of Judgment of the CA Resolution issued on November 22, 1995. 6
On November 27, 2002, the trial court granted Estanislao's motion, the fallo of which states:
WHEREFORE, finding the motion of [Estanislao] for the issuance of an alias writ of demolition to be meritorious, the same is hereby GRANTED, but the Motion for the designation of Special Sheriff is DENIED.
Let an alias writ of demolition be issued but before actual implementation of said writ, the [appellees] are hereby given a period of thirty (30) days from notice hereof to remove voluntarily the improvements existing on the land subject matter of the litigation.
SO ORDERED. 7
On motion for reconsideration by the appellees, the court a quo reversed itself and set aside the Order dated November 27, 2002. The decretal portion of the order reads:
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration dated November 11, 2002, filed by the [appellees] being meritorious, is hereby granted.
The order of this Order (sic) dated November 27, 2002 granting [Estanislao's] motion for issuance of alias writ of demolition is hereby reconsidered and set aside. The motion for the issuance of alias writ of demolition dated October 29, 2002 filed by [Estanislao] is hereby Denied for having been filed beyond the 5-year period as required under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED. 8
Aggrieved, Estanislao assailed said order before the CA.
On December 18, 2009, the CA, in its Decision, 9 granted the petition, the fallo of which states:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The impugned Orders are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and the Order of the trial court dated November 27, 2002 [is] REINSTATED. SDHTEC
SO ORDERED.10
Hence, this petition.
Ruling of the Court
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court finds no reversible error with the assailed CA decision. The Court agrees with the CA that the appellees have only employed dilatory tactics in evading the execution of the decision which had long become final and executory on May 18, 1989. After the judgment became final, Estanislao filed several motions for and in support of its execution. As the CA ruled, the subsequent motions for the issuance of alias writ of demolition were only part of the writ of execution that was issued on April 6, 1990, and meant to carry out said execution. 11 It was the obstinate acts of the appellees in refusing to vacate, questioning the writs of execution/demolition, filing a petition for TRO and the issuance thereof later which prevented the satisfaction of the said judgment. The CA further stated that the five-year period for enforcement of a judgment by motion was deemed to have been interrupted by the acts of the appellees themselves and cannot be attributed to Estanislao. 12
Execution of a judgment is the fruit and end of the suit, and is the life of the law. To frustrate it for several years by means of deception and dilatory schemes on the part of the losing litigants is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts which can not be countenanced. It is in the interest of justice that we write finis to this litigation. 13
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-30.
2.Id. at 36-37.
3.Id. at 37.
4.Id. at 37-38.
5.Id. at 39.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 40.
9. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo concurring; id. at 35-46.
10.Id. at 45.
11.Id. at 42.
12. Id. at 43-44.
13. PhilHealth v. Court of Appeals, 593 Phil. 367, 376 (2008).