ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. L-30240.July 20, 1999]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. JUDGE JAIME DE LOS ANGELES
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 20, 1999 .
G.R. No. L-30240(Republic of the Philippines, as Lessor, Zoila De Chavez, assisted by her husband Col. Isaac Chavez, Deogracias Mercado, Rosendo Iba�ez and Guillermo Mercado as permitees and/or Lessees of public fishpond, petitioners, vs. Hon. Judge Jaime De Los Angeles of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, (Br. III, Balayan) [later replaced by Judge Jesus Arlegui], Sheriff of Batangas, Enrique Zobel, and the Register of Deeds of Balayan, Batangas, respondents.) and
G.R. No. 26112(Republic of the Philippines, Miguel Tolentino, Sr., Zoila De Chavez, Deogracias Mercado, Mariano Pontoja, Guillermo Mercado, Agapito Reyes, Isidro Besas, Leona Lachica, Eleno Macalindong, Dionisio Macalindong, Doroteo Sara, Joaquin Cauanceran, Virgilio Aguilar, Felix Duman, Pio Baculi, Antero Apolinar, Flaviano Curzado, Rosendo Iba�ez, Arcadio Gonzales, Felix Borja and Blas Basco, petitioners, vs. Hon. Jaime De Los Angeles, Judge Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch III, Balayan, Batangas, Ayala Y Cia and/or Hacienda Calatagan and Alfonso Zobel, respondents.)
On June30, 1988 was issued the following Writ of Execution, 1 Rollo, pp. 1346-1349.for the enforcement of the Decision of the court En Banc dated March 25 1988:
"By virtue of the Decision of this Honorable Court En Banc, dated March 25, 1988, 2 159 SCRA 264; Penned by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee.you are hereby commanded to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court therein, which
1. Annulled the questioned
mandatory injunction of October 1, 1968 issued by respondent judge and made
permanent the restraining orders
3
This Court's restraining orders inter alia
"enjoined respondent Enrique Zobel or his duly authorized representative
from further cutting off the trees in the undeveloped fishpond of Guillermo
Mercado having an area of Two (2) hectares, more or less, and from hauling the
big trees already cut off costing P10,000.00 (Resolution dated November
10, 1983) and "enjoined respondent Enrique Zobel and his agents,
representatives and/or any other persons acting on his behalf to desist from
cutting off or removing any tree in the questioned areas which were declared
reverted to the public domain and which are claimed by the Republic effective
immediately and until further orders by the Court." (Resolution dated
December 6, 1983).issued by the Court;
2. Declared as null and void the questioned decision of December 15, 1981 as well as the corresponding writ of execution therefor, having been issued by respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction, and for being in contravention of the final 1965 decision in Civil Case No. 373 as affirmed in G. R. No. L-20950; 4 14SCRA 259.
3. Declared the Resurvey Plan duly approved by the Director of Lands as sufficient basis for the execution of the final judgment in the aforesaid Civil Case No. 373 as affirmed in G.R. No. L-20950; and
4. Directed the Clerk of this Court to forthwith issue the corresponding writ of execution in the case at bar for Civil Case No. 373 of the Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance) of Batangas (Balayan Branch) reverting to public dominion and delivering to the duly authorized representatives of the Republic all public lands and lots, fishponds, territorial bay waters, rivers, manglares (sic), foreshores and beaches, etc. as delineated in the aforesaid duly approved Resurvey Plan (Annex "C") and any supplemental Resurvey Plan as may be found necessary and duly approved by the Secretary of Agriculture."
You are also commanded to enforce and implement the judgment dated May 31, 1965 in Civil Case No. 373 as clarified in the Court's decision dated June 30, 1967 and Resolution dated April 11, 1972 both in S.C. G.R. No. 26112, as follows:
"(a) Declaring as null and void Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9550 (or Exhibit '24') of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Batangas and other subdivision titles issued in favor of Ayala Y Cia and/or Hacienda de Calatagan over the areas outside its private land covered by TCT No. 772, which, including the lots in T-9550 (lots 360, 362; 363 and 182) are hereby reverted to public dominion;
"(b) Ordering defendants Antonino Dizon, Lucia Dizon, Adelaida Dizon Reyes, Consolacion Dizon de Degollacion, Artemio Dizon, Ruben Dizon, Amorando Dizon, and Zenaida Dizon, to vacate lot 360 in favor of the Republic of the Philippines [not intervenor Miguel Tolentino] 5 Note in bracket supplied. (;)
"(c) This portion of the original judgment granting compensatory damages to intervenor Miguel Tolentino was set aside in the Court's Resolution dated October 4, 1971 and April 11, 1972 in S.C. G.R. No. 26112. The Court's Resolution of April 11, 1972 clarified and adjudged that: "Upon these premises, We hold that even if the prayer for certiorari and mandamus in the basic petition herein is denied, still it is clear that what this Court is disposing of in the present case does not affect at all the interests of the Republic but only those of intervenor Tolentino in relation to the lower court's orders of January 18, 1966, February 2, 1966 and April 13, 1966. As already explained, the order of February 8, 1966 does not constitute a denial of the right of the Republic to the cancellation of the titles nullified by the decision of Judge Tengco [and] affirmed by this Court. Indeed, the respondent Judge expressly made the reservation for the Republic to 'resort' to the court should private respondents refuse or fail to have their titles cancelled. Incidentally, even the order of October 27, 1970 about the resurvey merely held the remedy to be premature until the decision in this case had become final. Of course, it is understood that in such eventuality the resurvey requested by the Provincial Fiscal would be in order and as soon as the same is completed the proper writ of execution for the delivery of possession of the portions found to be public land should issue." (44 SCRA 263-264)] 6 Note in bracket supplied; Republic of thePhilippines vs. Hon. Judge Jaime De Los Angeles. 44 SCRA 250.
"(d) Restraining and enjoining the defendants from further exercising ownership and possession over lots 360, 362, and 182 of Psd-40891;
x x x
You are also commanded to cause the Register of Deeds of Batangas province to CANCEL all other subdivision titles issued in favor of Ayala Y Cia. And or Hacienda Calatagan over the areas outside its private land covered by TCT No. 722 and/or by other subdivision titles outside its private land as may have been issued to their transferees, and to DELIVER to the Republic of the Philippines through its authorized representatives 'all public lands and lots, fishponds, territorial baywaters, rivers, manglares (sic), foreshores and beaches, etc., as delineated in the aforesaid duly approved Resurvey Plan (Annex 'C') xerox copy of which is hereto attached and any supplemental Resurvey Plan as may be found necessary and duly approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.'
x x x"
On July 19, 1988, the respondents, Enrique Zobel, Ayala Y Cia, and Hacienda:Calatagan, presented the Petition To Quash Writ of Execution With Prayer for Injunction and a Restraining Order 7 Rollo , pp. 1353-1365.at bar, contending that:
1. The writ is improper because the right to the enforcement of the decision in Civil Case No. 373 has prescribed;
2. The writ is not in accordance with the final decision in (Civil) Case 373; and
3.The writ violates due process insofar as it affects the rights of persons who are not parties in this L-30240 and Civil Case No. 373.
The Decision referred to in the petition is the 1965 final judgment in Civil Case No. 373 as affirmed in G.R. No. L-20950, entitled "Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Ayala Y Cia, and/or Hacienda Calatagan, Alfonso Zobel, et al.," 8 14 SCRA 259.the decretal portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(a) Declaring as null and void Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9550 (or Exhibit '24') of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Batangas and other subdivision titles issued in favor of Ayala Y Cia and/or Hacienda de Calatagan over the areas outside its private land covered by TCT No. 772, which, including the lots in T-9550 (lots 360, 362, 363 and 182) are hereby reverted to public domain;
(b) Ordering defendants Antonino Dizon, Lucia Dizon, Adelaida Dizon Reyes, Consolacion Dizon Degollacion, Artemio Dizon, Zenaida Dizon, to vacate lot 360 in favor of Intervenor Miguel Tolentino;
(c) Ordering all the
defendants to jointly and severally pay intervenor Miguel Tolentino
compensatory damages in the sum of P3,000.00 a year per hectare of lot
360 from March 11, 1954 until he is placed in lawful possession of the said
area;
(d) Restraining and enjoining all the defendants from further acts of ownerships and possession over Lots 360, 363, and 182 of Psd-40891; and
(e) Ordering the defendants to jointly and severally pay the costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED."
In the aforecited Decision, the court a quo found that Ayala Y Cia, Hacienda Calatagan and/or Alfonso Zobel illegally expanded the original area covered by their TCT No. 722 (derived from OCT 20) from 9,652.583 hectares to about 12,000 hectares, usurping thereby approximately Two Thousand (2,000) hectares embracing portions of the territorial sea beach and navigable waters of the public domain.
In Dizon vs. Rodriguez, 9 13 SCRA 704 [April 30, 1965].the Court described what happened as follows:
"Hacienda Calatagan owned by Alfonso and Jacobo Zobel was originally covered by TCT No. T-722. In 1938, the hacienda constructed a pier, called "Santiago Landing," about 600 meters long from the shore into the navigable waters of the Pagaspas Bay, to be used by vessels loading sugar produced by the Hacienda sugar mill. When the sugar mill ceased its operation in 1948, the owners of the Hacienda converted the pier into a fishpond dike and built additional strong dikes enclosing an area of about 30 hectares (of the Bay) and converted the same into a fishpond. The Hacienda owners also enclosed a similar area of about 37 hectares of the Bay on the other side of the pier which was also converted into a fishpond.
In 1949, the Zobels ordered the subdivision of the Hacienda by ordering the preparation of the subdivision plan Psd-27941 wherein fishpond No.1 (with 30 hectares) was referred to as Lot No. 1 and fishpond No. 2 (with 37 hectares) was referred to as Lot No. 49. The plan was approved by the Director of Lands, and the Register of Deeds issued, from TCT No. T-722, TCT No. 2739 for Lots 49 and 1 in the name of Jacobo Zobel.
In 1950, Jacobo Zobel sold to Antonino Dizon, et al. Lot 49 for which said purchasers obtained at first TCT No. T-2740 and later T-4718, Lot 1, on the other hand, was purchased by Carlos Goco, et at., who, in turn, sold one-half thereof to Manuel Sy-Juco, et al. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4159 was issued in the names of the Gocos and Sy-Jucos."
In the same case, the Court upheld the finding below "that the Subdivision plan was prepared not in accordance with the technical description in TCT No. 722 but in disregard of it" and "that the fishponds lots" are actually part of the territorial waters and belong to the State."
So also, in G.R. No-L-20950, 10 Republic of the Philippines vs. Ayala Y Cia ., and/or Hacienda Calatagan , et al., 14 SCRA 259 [May 31, 1965].the Court found that Hacienda Calatagan did encroach upon portions of public marshy land which areas were leased to individuals who converted them into fishponds.
To prevent the execution of the said judgment despite its finality, the herein private respondents filed several motions mentioned in the Solicitor General's Comment, 11 Rollo , pp. 1428-50.to wit:
"x x x
a) Upon issuance of a writ of execution in 1966 to enforce paragraph (c) of the Decision in G.R. No. L-20950 with respect to the award of damages, private respondents moved to quash the writ and opposed the Republic's motion for issuance of another writ of execution respecting paragraph (a) for cancellation of the void subdivision titles. Private respondents' aforesaid motion to quash the writ of execution and opposition to the issuance of a writ of execution were given due course by respondent Judge Arlegui in his Orders dated February 2 and 8, 1966. When the matter was brought before this Honorable Court in G. R. No. L-26112, 12 Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge De Los Angeles , 41 SCRA 422 [1971]; 44 SCRA 255 [1972].entitled "Republic, et at. vs. V. Judge de Los Angeles, et at., judgment was rendered on June 30, 1967 annulling the assailed Orders and directing respondent Judge to issue the writs of execution in Civil Case No. 373.
b) However, private respondents moved for reconsideration. Upon its denial, they filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration, followed by a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and a Second Supplement to the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
c) Since private respondent Zobel ousted Zoila de Chavez, a government fishpond permittee, from a portion of the fishpond lot in subdivision TCT No. 3699 and threatened to eject fishpond permittees Zoila de Chavez, Guillermo Mercado, Deogracias Mercado and Rosendo lba�ez from their respective fishpond lots embraced in the void subdivision titles, TCT Nos. 3699 and 9262, the Republic filed on August 2, 1967 against respondent Zobel and the Register of Deeds of Batangas, an Amended Complaint for "Accion Reinvindicatoria with Preliminary Injunction," docketed as Civil Case No. 653, to cancel Zobel's void subdivision titles, TCT Nos. 3699 and 9262, reconvey the lands covered thereby to the government, place the said fishpond permittees in peaceful and adequate possession thereof, require respondent Zobel to pay back rentals to the government, and enjoin said respondent from usurping and exercising further acts of dominion and ownership over the subject lands of the public domain.
d) Respondent Zobel filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 653, invoking res judicata in view of Civil Case No. 373. He maintained that if TCT Nos. T-3699 and T-9262 had been declared null and void in Civil Case No. 373, the proper procedure was to execute the decision in that case and not seek relief in a new case. Besides, he argued, there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause in G.R. No. L-26112 with respect to the execution of said Civil Case No. 373. The said motion to dismiss was, however, denied by the trial court and respondent Zobel was required to file an answer.
e) In respondents Zobel's Answer With Counterclaim, he alleged that TCT Nos. 3699 and 9262 are valid and subsisting since in G. R. No. L-20950 only TCT No. T-9550 was specifically declared null and void and when Civil Case No. 373 was filed, respondent Enrique Zobel "was and still is at present one of the members and managing partners of Ayala y Compania, one of the defendants in the said civil case, and, therefore, privy thereto." He prayed for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to restore to him possession of subject land and order Zoila de Chavez and Guillermo Mercado to vacate the premises in question and surrender possession thereof to Zobel. On October 1, 1968, the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was granted by the respondent Judge. Hence, a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction was filed by the Republic (G.R. No. L-30240). A Restraining Order was issued by this Honorable Court on March 7, 1969.
f) While G. R; No. L-26112 (re: execution) and G. R. No. 30240 (sic) were pending, the Republic filed a motion on July 8, 1970 in Civil Case No. 373 for authority to conduct a resurvey of the lands in question to properly segregate from the private land covered by TCT No. 722 the areas outside thereof comprising about 2,000 hectares of public land, beach, foreshore and territorial sea. Respondents Ayala and Zobel opposed the same arguing that the proper step for the government was to ask for a Writ of Execution; that other than TCT No. T-9550, no other subdivision title was declared null and void in the 1965 judgment; that the lower court could not make a ruling on the motion for resurvey 'without requiring the presentation of additional evidence, which would be tantamount to reopening a case where the judgment is already final and executory and the Government's failure to seek a clarification of the decision to find out what other titles should have been declared null and void precludes it from doing it so now as the decision is now final and executory.' Respondent Judge denied the Republic's motion for authority to conduct a resurvey in his Order dated October 27, 1970.
g) On October 4, 1971, this Honorable Court issued a Resolution granting the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents Ayala and Zobel in G.R. No. L-26112 (41 SCRA 422). Consequently, the June 30, 1967 decision directing the issuance of the Writ of Execution was set aside and the Republic's Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus assailing the lower court's quashal and denial of the Writ of Execution was dismissed.
h) The Republic moved for a reconsideration of the said Resolution which was denied by this Honorable Court on April 11, 1972 with a clarification that said denial 'does not constitute a denial of the right of the Republic of the cancellation of the titles nullified by the decision of Judge Tengco (in Civil Case No. 373) affirmed by this Court (in G.R. No. L-20950). x x x Even the trial court's Order of October 27, 1970 about the resurvey merely held the remedy to be premature until the decision in this case has become final. Of course, it is understood that in such eventuality, the resurvey requested by the Provincial Fiscal would be in order and as soon as the same is completed, the proper writ of execution for the delivery of possession of the portions found to be public land should issue.' (G.R. No. L-26112, 44 SCRA 255, 263 1972).
i) Thereafter, the Republic filed in Civil Case No. 373 a "Motion to Resurvey" which was granted in an Order dated August 21, 1973 as well as in the Orders of December 27, 1973 and February 26, 1974. A Report on the Resurvey dated August 5, 1977 (Annex "A" to Republic's Comment dated March 30, 1981) together with the "Final Report" dated September 2, 1977 and the "Resurvey Plan" (Annexes "B" and "C," Ibid) were approved by the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Republic submitted the approved Resurvey Plan and Report to the trial court in Civil Case No. 373. However, Judge Arlegui disapproved the same, thereby preventing execution of the Decision in Civil Case No. 373. The disapproval in effect negated the Resolution in G.R. No. L-26112 (44 SCRA 255) that as soon as resurvey 'is completed the Writ of Execution for the delivery of possession of the portions found to be public land should issue.'
j) Meanwhile, in Civil Case No. 653, respondent Zobel filed on July 10, 1969, a Motion to Suspend Further Hearing, Etc., therein praying that the hearings in said case be indefinitely suspended until the case at bar was resolved by this Honorable Court.
x x x
k) The said motion was followed by respondent Zobel's Motion for Immediate Resolution of Defendant-Movant's Motion to Suspend, Etc., which was opposed by the Republic. Then respondent Zobel filed a Reply to the Republic's Opposition.
l) The trial court did not formally act on the said Motion to Suspend Hearings. On January 14, 1976, respondent Zobel filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging failure to prosecute and res judicata, which was opposed by the Republic. The trial court dismissed the Republic's Complaint in its Order of January 12, 1977.
m) The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the extended period sought for in an earlier motion. Judge Arlegui denied the motion for extension in his Order of March 3, 1977. The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated March 3, 1977 and a Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated March 3, 1977, which were both denied by the trial court in its Order dated June 14, 1977. The Republic elevated the matter to this Honorable Court by Certiorari and Mandamus in G.R. No. 46396, which petition was dismissed in the Resolution of December 17, 1977.
n) After the dismissal of the petition in G.R. No. 46396, respondent Zobel filed in G.R. No. 30240 a Motion to Dismiss Petition and a Manifestation and Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order issued on March 7, 1969 and a supplemental motion, alleging that the said case had become moot and academic by the dismissal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 653 in the lower court. The Republic opposed in its Comment dated March 30, 1981.
o) On December 15, 1981, Judge Arlegui issued a Decision on the Counterclaim of respondent Zobel in Civil Case No. 653, declaring him the true, absolute and registered owner of the lands covered by TCT Nos. 3699, T-7702 and T-9262 (now No. 10031) and directing the Government's permittees to vacate the lands held by them.
p) Judge Arlegui issued a Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 653 on March 9, 1982, and the heirs of Guillermo Mercado filed an Urgent Motion to stay the same. A restraining order was issued by this Honorable Court on June 17, 1982. Respondent Zobel moved for a reconsideration and the lifting of said restraining order. Meanwhile, the heirs of Zoila de Chavez moved for a preliminary mandatory injunction to restore them in the possession of a portion of the land in dispute by virtue of the Writ of Execution issued in Civil Case No. 653.
q) The Republic opposed the said motion for reconsideration of respondent Zobel in its Consolidated Comment dated September 30, 1982 and concurred with the motion filed by the heirs of Zoila de Chaves for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
r) The heirs of Guillermo Mercado filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, as respondent Zobel in spite (sic) of the restraining order enjoining him from enforcing the Writ of Execution started cutting the trees in the undeveloped fishpond leased to Mercado. However, respondent Zobel and his agents continued cutting the trees in the disputed areas and, hence, the said heirs of Mercado filed a Second Urgent Motion for Contempt and a Second Restraining Order. This Honorable Court issued on December 3, 1983 a Second Temporary Restraining Order and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda, after which the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution.
s) On December 29, 1983, respondent Zobel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution dated December 3, 1983, which was opposed by the Republic in its Comment dated April 10, 1984.
xxx"
On March 25, 1988, the then Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee (flow in the great beyond) wrote "finis" to the case; as intimated in the aforementioned Writ of Execution. 13 See: Footnote no. 1, p. 1.
On April 8, 1988, the private respondents interposed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by this Court in the Resolution of April 14, 1988.
On June 30, 1988, a Writ of Execution was issued by the Court in the present case, in relation to G.R. No. L-26112 (Civil Case No. 373 of the former Court of First instance of Batangas, Branch III, Balayan, Batangas).
Undaunted, the private respondents filed on July 19, 1988 the Petition To Quash Writ of Execution With Prayer for Injunction and A Restraining Order under consideration, placing reliance on the grounds aforestated.
On August 15, 1988, private petitioners Zoila de Chavez, assisted by her husband Col. Isaac Chavez, Deogracias Mercado and the Heirs of Guillermo Mercado submitted their Comment/Opposition 14 Rollo , pp. 1454-1465.to the said petition arguing that (1) the decision in G.R. No. L-20950, which was promulgated by the Court En Banc on May 31, 1965, had been partially executed without any legal hindrance, and (2) to grant such petition would give life again to a final and executory decision.
Untenable is the contention of movants that the writ of execution sought to be quashed is improper because the right to enforce the said decision in G.R. No. L-20950 (Civil Case No. 373 below) has prescribed. In the first place, it is decisively clear that the private respondents themselves were the ones who caused the delay in the execution of said decision, by filing no less than fifteen (15) pleadings from 1965 to 1988, which, in essence, were merely dilatory moves resorted to by them.
Then, too, contrary to movants' stance that the writ sought to be quashed does not accord with the said final decision, subject writ of execution was precisely issued for the enforcement thereof by declaring null and void not only Transfer of Certificate Title No. 9550 but also "other subdivision titles" covering the expanded areas outside the private land of Hacienda Calatagan, more particularly described in Transfer of Certificate Title No. 722.
A perusal of the writ of execution under scrutiny shows that it also requires the Register of Deeds of the Province of Batangas to "cancel all other subdivision titles issued in favor of Ayala Y Cia and/or Hacienda de Calatagan over the areas outside its private land covered by TCT No. 722 and/or other subdivision titles outside its Private land as may have been issued to their transferees." Thus, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3699 and 9262 issued after the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 722 in the name of private respondent Zobel, form part of the annulled subdivision titles.
It is noteworthy that the resurvey plan (Annex "C") delineating the expanded areas covered by subdivision titles originating from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 722 was prepared by a committee created by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in which Ayala Y Cia and/or Hacienda de Calatagan was represented by Engineer Tomas Sanchez, Jr. The resulting resurvey plan was duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Pursuant to the Resolution dated April 11, 1972 of this court in G.R. No. 26112 (44 SCRA 255) to the effect after completion of the resurvey the writ of execution for the delivery of possession of the portion found to be public land should issue, there should no longer be any legal impediment to the execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. 373 (G.R. No. L-20950).
Neither is subject writ of execution violative of due process of law. The transferees of Ayala Y Cia of lots outside the area Covered by TCT No. 722 being successors-in-interest within legal contemplation, they could not have been deprived of due Process of law. Notice to Ayala Y Cia was deemed a notice to its transferees.
What is more, the conveyances to such transferees are void and without legal effect, the lands deeded out thereunder being outside the commerce of man. No rights whatsoever were thereby transferred. Consequently, there, was no need to implead them at all.
After a careful study and a examination of the pertinent pleadings and supporting documents on hand, the court is of the opinion, and so holds, that all the issues raised in the instant petition, including the subsequent Manifestations and other Motions, have been duly addressed and resolved by the Court in G.R. L-30240. 15 Republic of the Philippines et al . vs. Hon. Judge Jaime de los Angeles . et al., 159 SCRA 264.Verily, there is nothing left to be done except to make sure that the said final and executory decision be enforced.
It should be noted that the Relocation Survey aforementioned was completed as early as June 30, 1993, and the Court granted the Motion for Alias Writ of Execution of the Republic of the Philippines way back on August 4, 1994, almost five (5) years ago.
WHEREFORE , for lack of merit, the "Petition To Quash Writ of Execution With Prayer For Injunction and a Restraining Order" is hereby DENIED with finality.
It is understood, and let all parties concerned be notified by Personal service, that no further pleadings will be allowed in these long pending cases.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
