Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > July 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 140859 : July 30, 2008] SANTIAGO CARDENAS, ET AL. V. GALVEZ REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 July 2007:

G.R. No. 140859 (Santiago Cardenas, et al. v. Galvez Realty and Development Co., Inc.)

The present petition^[1] seeks to reverse and set aside the February 26, 1999 Decision^[2] and November 11, 1999 Resolution^[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 54202 entitled Santiago Cardenas, et al. v. Hon. Presiding Judge Municipal Trial Court of Balagtas, et al., which annulled the May 27, 1996 Resolution of the Malolos, Bulacan Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76 in Civil Case No. 315-M-96, which voided and lifted the writs of demolition issued by the Balagtas, Bulacan Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Civil Cases Nos. 041-40 to 058-94 (except Civil Cases Nos. 045-94 and 046-94). Said writs were issued to implement the final judgments issued in the aforementioned ejectment cases ordering petitioners to vacate the leased market stalls and restore respondent Galvez Realty and Development Co., Inc. to peaceful use and possession of the premises.

Respondent is the owner of Planters Plaza Market located at MacArthur Highway, Wawa, Balagtas, Bulacan. Petitioners Cardenas, et al. occupied the stalls of respondent and paid daily rental of PhP 50 each to said respondent. Respondent gave petitioners notice of termination of the daily lease and granted the lessees 15 days from notice to vacate, in order to repair and improve the market. Petitioners, however, refused to vacate the premises. Thus, respondent filed complaints for unlawful detainer against each of the 15 petitioners before the MTC.^[4]

Petitioners responded by claiming that respondent had no cause of action against them, the MTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, and the complaints were filed to force them to pay higher rentals.

After summary proceedings, the MTC rendered separate judgments in January 1995 ordering petitioners' ejectment, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. ordering defendant (Santiago Cardenas, et al.) and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the certain market stall located at MacArthur Highway, Wawa, Balagtas and restore plaintiff Galvez Realty and Development Co., Inc., and maintain it in peaceful use and possession thereof;
   
   
2. ordering defendant (Santiago Cardenas, et al.) to pay his daily lease rental of Fifty (P50.00) Pesos commencing from August 20. 1994 and everyday thereafter until he finally vacates the market stall in question; and
   
   
3. dismissing all other claims of plaintiff and all counterclaims of defendant for lack of evidence therefore.
   

In case of appeal the supersedeas bond to stay execution of this Decision is hereby fixed at Six Thousand Eight Hundred (P6,800.00) Pesos.

No pronounce as to costs.

SO ORDERED.^[5]

Petitioners appealed their case to the RTC which affirmed the judgment of the MTC. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court denied the petition and remanded the cases to the trial court for execution. Upon motion of respondent, the MTC issued writs of execution. The sheriff, however, reported that petitioners refused to remove their make shift stalls. Thus, respondent filed before the MTC an urgent Ex-Parte Consolidated Motion for Demolition which was granted on April 29, 1996.

On May 2, 1996, petitioners filed a case for damages and injunction against Judge Arcega and respondent, praying to stop the proceeding in the ejectment cases and that after due hearing, to make the injunction permanent. They also prayed that respondent be ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages in the sum of PhP 450,000 and PhP 150,000, respectively, plus attorney�s fees. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 315-M-96 and raffled to the Malolos, Bulacan RTC, Branch 76.^[6]

On May 27, 1996, the RTC issued a Resolution, ruling that there should be no demolition without a special order, petitioners were effectively denied their day in court, and there is sufficient ground for the issuance of the injunction. The RTC did not award damages nor issue a restraining order. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the writ of demolition issued on April 30, 1996 by the Municipal Trial Court of Balagtas, Bulacan in Civil Cases Nos. 041-40 to 058-94, is hereby declared void and is hereby lifted and set aside. The public and private respondents are hereby ordered to strictly comply with Sec. 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. All other claims of the parties are hereby dismissed.^[7]

Despite the nullification of the writs of demolition, the aforequoted RTC Resolution was appealed by petitioners to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 54202). Petitioners basically questioned (1) the RTC's order to the MTC to comply with Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court, (2) the treatment of the action for damages and injunction as a special civil action for certiorari, (3) the failure to set the case for pretrial and trial, and (4) the ruling that it cannot interfere with the final judgment on the ejectment cases.^[8]

The CA found that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was noted that petitioners did not even file a motion for reconsideration of the writ of demolition. The appellate court held, among others, that the execution of a final and executory judgment cannot be prevented by the ordinary civil action filed by petitioners. The dispositive portion of the CA's judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is declared null and void. The appeal is deemed moot and academic and is accordingly DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.^[9]

Before this Court, petitioners assert that they are entitled to the possession of the lot because their stalls are allegedly outside of the lot of respondent. They claim that respondent did not attach a copy of the Tax Declaration or Certificate of Title to its complaints for ejectment and was unable to specify the identity and location of the land subject matter of the complaints. Also, assuming arguendo that the ejectment orders were valid, they cannot be enforced against petitioners because they were not occupying the Planters Plaza Market or any portion of the land of respondent. They pray that the court a quo and its sheriff be ordered to secure a copy of respondent's title and plan to determine whether or not the market stalls stand on the respondent's property before proceeding with the execution against the petitioners. In other words, the sole issue raised in this petition is whether or not the Court can order the MTC and the sheriff to determine if petitioners' market stalls are within the property of respondent as a precondition before the demolition is implemented.

The issue raised by petitioners as to the determination of the portion of the land of respondent illegally possessed by petitioners is without a doubt a question of fact. Rule 45 is unequivocal that questions of fact cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, as this Court is not a trier of facts.^[10]

Moreover, petitioners admitted paying rentals to respondent; thus, making them lessees of the company. Their payment of rentals constitutes an admission of respondent's title to and right to possess the property. Petitioners are now estopped from asserting otherwise.^[11]

Lastly, but more importantly, the right to possession was already the subject of the ejectment cases which were covered by final and executory judgments of the MTC. As observed by the CA, the MTC already ruled that petitioners were wrongfully withholding possession of respondent�s lot, and its judgments had already been affirmed by the higher courts. The principle of res judicata had already set in which bars the relitigation of the same issues. Parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issues more than once.^[12] The doctrine of res judicata states that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.^[13]

Once a decision has become final and executory, no further amendment or correction can be made by the court, except to order its execution and to correct clerical errors and mistakes.^[14] Undoubtedly, the MTC judgments are final, unalterable, and immutable. The only thing left to be done is to enforce them.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 8-16.

^[2] Id. at 18-27. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and concurred in by Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Rodrigo V. Cosico.

^[3] Id. at 34.

^[4] Id. at 18-19.

^[5] Id. at 19-20.

^[6] Id. at 21.

^[7] Id. at 22.

^[8] Id. at 22-24.

^[9] Id. at 27.

^[10] RULES OF COURT. Rule 45, Sec. 1.

^[11] NEW CIVIL CODE, Article 1436; cited in Geminiano v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 682 (1996).

^[12] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101115, August 22, 2002, 387 SCRA 549, 558-559.

^[13] Rovels Enterprises, Inc. v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 136821, October 17, 2002, 391 SCRA 176, 190.

^[14] Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. Oriental Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 1406 October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 67, 73-74.