[ G.R. No. 138377. July 12, 2000]

CONCEPCION V. AMAGAN vs. TEODORICO T. MARAYAG.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 2000.

G.R. No. 138377. (Concepcion V. Amagan vs. Teodorico T. Marayag.)

As a general rule, ejectment suits are not abated or suspended by the mere filing of another action raising ownership of the property as an issue. However, as an exception, an unlawful detainer action may be suspended at whatever stage it may be, on considerations of equity, such as when the demolition of petitioner's house would result from the enforcement of the lower court's judgement. In its Decision, this Court applied the exception in the case at bar, upon the Court of Appeals' finding that "the immediate execution of the judgement in the unlawful detainer case will include the removal of the petitioner's house (from) the lot in question."

Before us now is an alternative Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on February 28, 2000, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the appealed Decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite is DIRECTED to suspend further action in Civil Case No. 1671 until Civil Case No. 1682 is concluded. No costs."

Private respondent inquires whether said disposition would apply even if, "in the meantime, the RTC's decision had already become final, executory and unappealable."

The case at bar stems from the Decision in CA-GR SP No. 43611, which resolved a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, seeking the nullification of the RTC Order granting execution pending appeal. The CA promulgated its Decision on July18, 1997, disposing as follows:

"WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order dated February 21, 1997allowing execution pending appeal is REVERSED and SET ASIDE."

A Motion filed at the RTC, praying for the resolution of the ejectment case on the merits, was opposed by private respondent, who contended that this case should be suspended pending decision on the merits of the case for the quieting of title. The lower court subsequently granted the Motion, declaring that, in the above-quoted disposition, the CA had merely nullified the Order granting execution pending appeal, but did not enjoin the former from resolving the ejectment case on the merits. This disposition of the RTC was sustained in a subsequent CA ruling which, however, was reversed by this Court in the case at bar.

Unbeknownst to us, the RTC had already resolved the appeal affirming the ejectment of petitioners prior to the promulgation of our Decision in the present case. Thus, without our knowledge, another case had been filed at the CA by the private respondent, thereby raising the following issues: whether the Decision of the RTC had become final and executory, and whether it must now order an entry of judgement and remand the case to the MCTC. On March 15, 2000, the CA promulgated its Decision in the case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, for the reasons aforesaid, the Orders of the Court a quo, dated June 2, 1999, and September 1, 1999, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, in favor of the execution of the Regional Trial Court's April 7, 1999 Decision. Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court is hereby DIRECTED to cause the entry of its April 7, 1999 judgement, and remand the records of the case to the Municipal Circuit trial Court, for immediate execution."

With the foregoing background, we now rule on the Motion before us. Our decision dated February 28, 2000 was in consonance with the facts known to us during its promulgation. At the time, there being no ruling yet on the finality of the RTC Decision, we confined our disposition to the known fact that the case was still on appeal.

Notwithstanding the finality of the RTC Decision in the ejectment case, however, we reiterate our earlier ruling suspending action in that ejactment case until Civil Case No. 1682 has been concluded. We hold that the allegedly final and executory judgement should not be executed until the issue of ownership has been resolved with finality. Equity justifies this course of action. Verily, the mischief that the Court sought to avoid in its Decision remains. It did not cease by the finality of the judgement in the ejectment suit.

In sum, we rule that our Decision remains. The Alternative Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification is thus DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

[G.R. No. 138377. July 12, 2000]

CONCEPCION V. AMAGAN vs. TEODORICO T. MARAYAG.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 2000.

G.R. No. 138377. (Concepcion V. Amagan vs. Teodorico T. Marayag.)

As a general rule, ejectment suits are not abated or suspended by the mere filing of another action raising ownership of the property as an issue. However, as an exception, an unlawful detainer action may be suspended at whatever stage it may be, on considerations of equity, such as when the demolition of petitioner's house would result from the enforcement of the lower court's judgement. In its Decision, this Court applied the exception in the case at bar, upon the Court of Appeals' finding that "the immediate execution of the judgement in the unlawful detainer case will include the removal of the petitioner's house (from) the lot in question."

Before us now is an alternative Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on February 28, 2000, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the appealed Decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite is DIRECTED to suspend further action in Civil Case No. 1671 until Civil Case No. 1682 is concluded. No costs."

Private respondent inquires whether said disposition would apply even if, "in the meantime, the RTC's decision had already become final, executory and unappealable."

The case at bar stems from the Decision in CA-GG SP No. 43611, which resolved a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, seeking the nullification of the RTC Order granting execution pending appeal. The CA promulgated its Decision on July18, 1997, disposing as follows:

"WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order dated February 21, 1997allowing execution pending appeal is REVERSED and SET ASIDE."

A Motion filed at the RTC, praying for the resolution of the ejectment on the merits, was opposed by private respondent, who contended that this case should be suspended pending decision on the merits of the case for the quieting of title. The lower court subsequently granted the Motion, declaring that, in the above-quoted disposition, the CA had merely nullified the Order granting execution pending appeal, but did not enjoin the former from resolving the ejectment case on the merits. This disposition of the RTC was sustained in a subsequent CA ruling which, however, was reversed by this Court in the case at bar.

Unbeknownst to us, the RTC had already resolved the appeal affirming the ejectment of petitioners prior to the promulgation of our Decision in the present case. Thus, without our knowledge, another case had been filed at the CA by the private respondent, thereby raising the following issues: whether the Decision of the RTC had become final and executory, and whether it must now order an entry of judgement and remand the case to the MCTC. On March 15, 2000, the CA promulgated its Decision in the case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, for the reasons aforesaid, the Orders of the Court a quo, dated June 2, 1999, and September 1, 1999, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, in favor of the execution of the Regional Trial Court's April 7, 1999 Decision. Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court is hereby DIRECTED to cause the entry of its April 7, 1999 judgement, and remand the records of the case to the Municipal Circuit trial Court, for immediate execution."

With the foregoing background, we now rule on the Motion before us. Our decision dated February 28, 2000 was in consonance with the facts known to us during its promulgation. At the time, there being no ruling yet on the finality of the RTC Decision, we confined our disposition to the known fact that the case was still on appeal.

Notwithstanding the finality of the RTC Decision in the ejectment case, however, we reiterate our earlier ruling suspending action in that ejactment case until Civil Case No. 1682 has been concluded. We hold that the allegedly final and executory judgement should not be executed until the issue of ownership has been resolved with finality. Equity justices this course of action. Verily, the mischief that the Court sought to avoid in its Decision remains. It did not cease by the finality of the judgement in the ejectment suit.

In sum, we rule that our Decision remains. The Alternative Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification is thus DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com