SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257226. November 24, 2021.]
ELENA JAVIER-SAPLAN, petitioner, vs.REMEDIOS B. CAMACHO, RAFAEL ANTONIO CAMACHO, REDENTORA CAMACHO-LIM, RACHEL CAMACHO-DOMANTAY AND REGINA CAMACHO-CORDERO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257226 (Elena Javier-Saplan v. Remedios B. Camacho, Rafael Antonio Camacho, Redentora Camacho-Lim, Rachel Camacho-Domantay and Regina Camacho-Cordero). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated September 15, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated March 5, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 161610.
The Antecedents
The case involves a leased property in Tondo, Manila registered in the name of Remedios B. Camacho (Remedios) and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 266250 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila (Tondo property). Elena Javier-Saplan (petitioner) and Irene Pascual (Irene) had been leasing the Tondo property from Remedios, Rafael Antonio Camacho, Redentora Camacho-Lim, Rachel Camacho-Domantay, and Regina Camacho-Cordero (collectively, respondents) since 1972. 4
When respondents increased the rent sometime in 2001, petitioner and Irene allegedly responded by refusing to pay rent. Thus, on April 20, 2007, after demand, respondents filed a suit for unlawful detainer (ejectment case) against petitioner and Irene before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila City, docketed as Civil Case No. 183617.
The ejectment case was litigated all the way to the Court, with all courts which heard the case ruling against petitioner and Irene. On September 15, 2014, the Court denied petitioner and Irene's last appellate remedy with finality. Accordingly, an Entry of Judgment was issued. 5
The Tondo property was originally a foreshore land, the ownership of which was first granted to a certain Melchor Noriega (Noriega) through a patent issued sometime in 1967, pursuant to Republic Act No. 1597. 6 Pursuant to the patent grant, alienation of the property was prohibited for a period of 15 years from date of issue. However, Remedios admitted that she acquired the property from Noriega by purchase in 1966 or within the proscribed period. She was in peaceful possession of the Tondo property in the concept of an owner for more than 40 years. Further, she caused the issuance of a TCT in her name on November 16, 2004. 7
While the ejectment case was ongoing, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed an action for cancellation of original certificate of titles and reversion of the Tondo property (reversion case) against Noriega and Remedios because of the prohibited transfer between them. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 09-121022. 8
On July 17, 2014, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court, Manila City, (RTC-Br. 15) rendered a Decision in the reversion case in favor of the Republic. Remedios timely appealed the RTC-Br. 15 Decision to the CA. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 104656. 9
About a year after the entry of the Court's final judgment in the ejectment case, or on September 3, 2015, respondents filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 183617. While the motion was granted in an Order dated November 11, 2015, the writ of execution itself was not issued until September 26, 2017. 10
On October 12, 2017, petitioner and Irene filed a motion to quash the writ of execution on the ground that respondents' motion for execution, as well as the writ itself did not conform to the form prescribed in Section 8 (e), 11 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 12
Petitioner and Irene also argued that the execution was improper because (1) they are entitled to reimbursement for the value of the improvements they introduced on the property during the period of their possession and (2) the Decision dated July 17, 2014 of RTC-Br. 15 in the reversion case had the effect of an injunction to prohibit respondents from exercising acts of ownership over the Tondo property, including the execution of the final judgment in the ejectment case. 13
In its Order dated January 23, 2018, the MeTC partly granted the motion to quash, acknowledging the defect in form of the writ of execution when it failed to "specifically provide [for] the total amount of the principal obligation and legal interest owing to plaintiffs." 14 Thus, it quashed the first writ of execution. However, it sua sponte directed the issuance of a new writ of execution which included the monetary judgment awarded in Civil Case No. 183617. It rejected the other arguments of petitioner and Irene for lack of merit. 15
On February 22, 2018, petitioner and Irene filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order dated January 23, 2018. In addition to their original arguments, they argued that the MeTC's act of issuing the new "corrected" writ of execution was also void for not having been issued on a valid motion by respondents. In an Order dated April 27, 2018, the MeTC denied the motion. 16
Meanwhile, on May 24, 2018, the CA rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 104656 denying the appeal of Remedios from the decision in the reversion case. 17
On June 4, 2018, petitioner and Irene filed a petition for certiorari with RTC-Br. 12 Manila alleging that the MeTC's denial of their motion to quash and motion to set aside was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 18
Ruling of the RTC
In an Order 19 dated December 17, 2018, the RTC-Br. 12 dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. In another Order 20 dated May 10, 2019, it also denied petitioner and Irene's motion for reconsideration.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision 21 dated September 15, 2020, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit. It held that a petition for certiorari from an order of execution in an ejectment case is prohibited; 22 thus, the RTC should not have given due course to the petition for certiorari in the first place. 23 It also found no exceptional circumstance to justify taking cognizance of the petition. 24
Moreover, the CA held that the reversion case is not determinative of the ejectment case. It explained that the reversion case and the ejectment case are separate and distinct cases which have different nature and dissimilar effects. Besides, it pointed out that its Decision dated May 24, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 104656 is not yet final and executory and therefore not yet conclusive against Remedios and her co-respondents. 25
Petitioner and Irene subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 26 However, the CA denied the motion in the assailed CA Resolution dated March 5, 2021. 27
Hence, the present petition filed by petitioner.
Issues
Petitioner raises the following grounds:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FROM AN ORDER OF EXECUTION IN AN EJECTMENT CASE IS PROHIBITED, IGNORING THAT SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ALLOWS A REMEDY AGAINST GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, WHICH IS CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE MANILA RTC AND AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF, COMMANDING THAT "DEFENDANTS NORIEGA AND CAMACHO OR ANY OTHER PERSONS ACTING IN THEIR BEHALF OR STEAD ARE DIRECTED TO REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING ACTS OF POSSESSION, OWNERSHIP AND DOMINION OVER THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND, INCLUDING CONVEYANCE THEREOF," IN RELATION TO SECTION 4, RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN INJUNCTION CANNOT BE STAYED BY AN APPEAL UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE JUDGMENT IN THE INJUNCTION CASE.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CAMACHOS, PROHIBITING THEM FROM EXERCISING ACTS OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THE REVERSION AND INJUNCTION CASE, WHICH IS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE, ISSUED BY THE RTC AND UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, IS A SUPERVENING EVENT WHICH RENDERS THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE. 28
The Court's Ruling
Foremost, the petition should be dismissed for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
Per Administrative Circular Nos. 21-2021 29 and 22-2021, 30 the expiration of the reglementary period to file the petition was on May 10, 2021. While petitioner timely posted the legal fees on March 24, 2021, her petition was posted only on May 17, 2021, or beyond the reglementary period.
Moreover, petitioner's counsel did not indicate his contact details as required under En Banc Resolution dated July 10, 2007 in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC. 31
Even assuming that the petition was filed on time and free from any formal defect, the Court still denies it for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in its Decision dated September 15, 2020 and Resolution dated March 5, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP No. 161610 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The CA did not err in denying the appeal from RTC-Br. 12's dismissal of the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner and Irene against the order of execution in the ejectment case. It correctly held that the reversion case is not determinative of the ejectment case. Between petitioner and respondents, the latter have been uniformly declared by the MeTC, the RTC, the CA, and this Court as having the superior right to possess the Tondo property. It is immaterial to the cause of petitioner that the Republic may have turned out to have a title superior to that of respondents. In other words, it is already conclusively settled that petitioner had failed to show a better right of possession over the Tondo property.
Respondents are entitled to the execution of the judgment in the ejectment case docketed as Civil Case No. 183617. The issuance of a writ of execution of a final and executory judgment is generally a court's ministerial duty. 32 As aptly held by the CA, respondents' right to the execution of the judgment in the ejectment case should not be hindered by an injunction issued in a separate and unrelated proceeding. Significantly, petitioner and Irene are not even parties to the reversion case; thus, they have no standing to assert the rights and interests of the Republic over the Tondo property, including the alleged injunction. 33
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 15, 2020 and the Resolution dated March 5, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 161610 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
2.Id. at 24-38; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
3.Id. at 40-45; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
4.Id. at 25.
5.Id.
6. Entitled, "Tondo Foreshore Land Act of 1956," approved on June 16, 1956.
7.Rollo, p. 25.
8.Id. at 25-26.
9.Id. at 26.
10.Id.
11. Section 8 (e), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution. — The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted the motion; (2) state the name of the court, the case number and title, the dispositive part of the subject judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ according to its terms, in the manner hereinafter provided:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall specifically state the amount of the interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits due as of the date of the issuance of the writ, aside from the principal obligation under the judgment. For this purpose, the motion for execution shall specify the amounts of the foregoing reliefs sought by the movant. (8a)
12.Rollo, p. 26.
13.Id. at 27.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 28.
19. Not attached to the rollo; as culled from the Decision dated September 15, 2020 of the Court of Appeals, id.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 24-38.
22.Id. at 29 and 31.
23.Id. at 31.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 36-37.
26.Id. at 61-72.
27.Id. at 40-45.
28.Id. at 8-9.
29. Re: Extension of Physical Closure of Courts, approved on April 10, 2021.
30. Re: Physical Closure of Courts in Enhanced Community Quarantine and Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine Areas, approved on April 14, 2021.
31. Statement of Contact Details of Parties or Their Counsels in All Papers and Pleadings Filed with the Supreme Court.
32. See Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. International Exchange Bank, G.R. No. 212262, August 26, 2020.
33.Rollo, p. 45.