ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 156257. October 8, 2003]

vs. BARROSO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 8 2003.

G.R. No. 156257.(Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of National Defense v. Hon. Jesus M. Barroso, Jr., et. al.)

For consideration is petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 27 January 2003, assailing the Decision dated 29 November 2002 of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed petitioner's certiorari petition before it.Petitioners had sought to void the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay which granted private respondents' Motion for Discretionary Execution of Judgment and issued the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal.

Private respondents Heirs of Lucio Saligumba (namely Lino and Jesus Saligumba) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession De Jure of a Parcel of Land against the Department of National Defense before the RTC of Malaybalay. They alleged continuous, public, adverse and peaceful occupation of the property in the concept of owner starting in 1922, before they were ejected by the Philippine Army in 1972. Petitioner, on the other hand, claimed that the subject property was part of a military reservation by virtue of Proclamation No. 354, issued in 1938, and that private respondents have no valid claim of ownership. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on 17 August 2001, ordering petitioner to restore and turn over possession of the property to the private respondents. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, and the appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeals.

On 28 August 2001, private respondents filed a Motion for Discretionary Execution of Judgment, alleging their old age as "good reason" for granting the same. At the time the motion was filed, Lino and Jesus Saligumba were 84 and 81 years old respectively. Despite opposition by petitioners, the respondent judge granted the Motion and issued the corresponding writ on 12 September 2001. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, then questioned the orders of respondent judge by way of Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. On 29 November 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution pending appeal as the advanced age of the private respondents constitutes good reason for the execution. Petitioner brought the present Petition for Review before us, focusing on what it perceived to be the weakness of the private respondents' claim of possession. Private respondents Lino and Jesus Saligumba filed their Comment to the Petition on 6 May 2003.

We find no reversible error in the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court correctly avoided dwelling into the merits of the principal case and focused on the issue of whether the requirements for allowing execution pending appeal were satisfied, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It concluded that as required by the said rule, private respondents stated "good reason" namely, their advanced age, justifying execution pending appeal. Instead of questioning the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the present good reason warranting award of execution, the petition before us is assailing the main decision of the RTC by refuting private respondents' claim over the litigated lot. The main case is currently pending before the Court of Appeals. All questions pertaining to private respondents' claim to the subject property should appropriately be resolved in the appeal. The petition before this Court is concerned with the validity of the execution pending appeal.

It is settled jurisprudence that advanced age of the prevailing party constitutes good reason for allowing execution pending appeal [1] cralaw , and there is no reason to reexamine the Court's thinking on the matter. The two private respondents were 81 and 84 years old respectively at the time they filed the motion for execution pending appeal. Considering that the average lifespan of the Filipino male ranges from 65 to 68 years, the private respondents were then clearly in the twilight of their lives, and it was doubtful if they see the final resolution of their case during their lifetime, as in fact, so the Court of Appeals noted, that one of them, Jesus Saligumba, has since died. [2] cralaw

The term "good reasons" has been defined as "compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory. . . [that] constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment." [3] cralaw The advancing age of the surviving private respondent constitutes an urgent superior circumstance that justifies the grant of execution pending appeal.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit, no reversible error having been committed by the Court of Appeals.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw See Borja vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37944 June 30, 1988; De Leon vs. Soriano, G.R. No. L-7648, 17 September 1954; Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126158, September 23, 1997,

[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 34.

[3] cralaw Yasuda v. CA, 330 SCRA 385, 397


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