ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135814. June 23, 1999]

HEIRS OF LEOVIGILDO CALPITO vs. OSCAR GARCIA

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 23, 1999.

G.R. No. 135814 (Heirs Leovigildo Calpito, represented by Daniel Calpito vs. Oscar Garcia.)

As holder of Fishpond Permit No. F-5480-U, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Leovigildo Calpito, filed an action (Civil Case No. 572) for recovery of possession, damages and attorney's fees against respondent before the then Davao Court of First Instance (CFI). On June 27, 1977, the Davao CFI ruled petitioners entitled to possession of the fishpond conditioned on their payment of the useful improvements made by respondent on the same. The Decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and was entered as final on September 23, 1982.

Petitioners failed to have the said Decision executed and in the interim several other persons occupied and developed the subject fishpond.

Meanwhile, on September 9, 1991, the Department of Agriculture ordered petitioners' Fishpond Permit terminated and declared the area vacant and available for occupancy, after finding that: (1) the fishpond was being occupied and developed by several other persons; and (2) petitioners could not be found nor had ever expressed any interest on the fishpond. Petitioners sought to have the DA Order reconsidered but their motion was denied.

On January 2, 1992, petitioners filed the instant action for Revival and Execution of Judgment before the Davao Regional Trial Court, Depositing P65,000.00, representing the improvements made by respondent, with the Clerk of Court. In his Answer, respondent raised prescription and change in the situation of the parties, which would render execution of the Decision inequitable, as defenses. On September 5, 1994, the lower court ruled in favor of petitioners.

On December 22, 1997, while ruling that prescription had yet set in, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's Decision, ruling that the termination of petitioners' lease/permit and the issuance of fishpond permits over the same fishpond to several other persons changed the parties' relation to each other and rendered any present and future attempt at execution of the subject Decision inequitable if not impossible.

Hence, this Petition raising the following issues: (1) whether the Decision of the trial court dated 5 September 1994 could still be executed; or (2) whether a substantial change in the relationship of the parties exist making the execution of the said Decision inequitable or impossible.

It is well settled that when after a judgment has become final and executory, facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask a competent court to stay its execution or prevent its enforcement.1 [Cruz v. Leabres, 244 SCRA 194, 200 (1995).] As acknowledged by petitioners, the new facts and circumstances that would justify a modification of non-enforcement of a final and executory judgment refers to those matters which developed after the judgment acquired finality and which were not in existence prior to or during the trial.2 [Petition, p. 5, citing Soco v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 449; Rollo, p. 13.] These are matters which the parties were not aware of, and could not have been aware of prior to or during the trial as they were not in existence.3 [Lim v. Jabalde, 172 SCRA 211, 220 (1989).] A change in the situation of the parties4 [See Balilia v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 262, 268 (1987).] as in the instant case, is one such example of supervening fact which would justify non-execution of a final and executory judgment.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the termination of petitioners' lease/permit, which the Department of Agriculture ordered way after the judgment acquired finality, materially changed the situation between the parties and makes the execution of the Davao CFI Decision inequitable if not impossible. Indeed, without a permit over the subject fishpond, petitioners have the lost possessory rights which they previously enjoyed and which was sought to be protected by the Davao CFI Decision. Simply stated, it would be impossible to execute the Davao CFI Decision since petitioners have no present permit granting possessory rights over the subject fishpond. What is more, the present holders of fishpond permits over the same subject fishpond already enjoy possessory rights over the same, to the exclusion of petitioners.

Having failed to have the Davao CFI Decision in favor executed for nine (9) years, petitioners have only themselves to blame for losing the rights of possession adjudged in their favor therein.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolve to DENY the Petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE