ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143267. July 26, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 26, 2000.

G.R. No. 143267 (Sps. Leonardo and Nenita Magsilat, Lenadro Licuan, Sps. Federico and Erlinda Regunan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Concepcion Alarcon-Vergara, et al.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing their petition, thus consequently affirming the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ordering the ejectment of petitioners.

The present controversy stemmed from consolidated actions for ejectment filed by private respondent against petitioners docketed as Civil Case Nos. 128694, 128695, 128696, 128705 and 128706 which the MeTC decided in favor of private respondents.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed. However, upon elevation, the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 25087, reversed the Regional Trial Court, upheld the MeTC, and ordered petitioners to vacate the subject premises.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition with this Court which was denied on the ground that the decision of the Court of Appeals had become final on August 9, 1993, per entry of judgement.

Attempting to delay the inevitable, petitioners instituted another action, this time for the annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages before the Regional trial Court.

Meanwhile, on motion of private respondents, the MeTC issued an order on April 4, 1994 directing the execution of said final judgement and the demolition of the structures built on the land in question. The enforcement of the order was, however, stopped by the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court in the action for annulment. This writ of preliminary injunction was challenged successfully by the private respondents before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 34808). This ruling was elevated to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 122885) which denied the petition.

With the removal of the legal impediment to the enforcement of its final decision, the MeTC, on motion issued another order on March 19, 1997 directing the issuance of a writ of demolition. This order was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 97-82655) which issued an order dated May 5, 1997 nullifying the order of demolition for non-compliance with Section 10, Rule 39 of the revised rules of Court. The regional Trial Court, however, said that private respondents could file a new motion for execution and demolition with the MeTC. Heeding that advice, private respondents filed another motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition on July 29, 1998. On January 14, 1999, the MeTC granted the motion and ordered again the demolition of petitioners' structures on the land in question.

Unperturbed, petitioners filed anew another petition with the Regional Trial Court, this time for certiorari with application for a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction (Civil Case No. 99-92680), seeking to annul the January 14, 1999 order of the MeTC. On May 24, 1999 the Regional Trial Court granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction and so the writ of execution and demolition were again effectively delayed. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting a writ of preliminary injunction. This motion was set for hearing on September 15, 1999. In view of the absence of counsel for private respondents during said scheduled hearing, respondent judge denied their Motion for Reconsideration.

Thereafter, the trial court, upon filing of their position papers, on October27, 1999, issued an order setting aside the order granting the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Cleared again of any legal impediment, the MeTC once more ordered the demolition of the structures of petitioners on the lot in question. A notice of demolition was accordingly served on petitioners on November 8, 1999.

In a last ditch effort, petitioners countered by filing a petition with the Court of Appeals claiming that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it reconsidered its order granting a writ of preliminary injunction. They claimed that respondent judge acted with bias, partiality, and in violation of due process, in issuing the reconsideration order.

The petition, as aforesaid was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, the instant petition.

Petitioners were never denied due process. If at all, they were granted "overdue" process at the expense of private respondents. It is inescapable that the ejectment of petitioners had been ripe for execution way back in 1993 when this Court in G.R. 107923 dismissed their petition declaring the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals final on August 9, 1999, per entry of judgment.

Judgment in ejectment cases which are favorable to the plaintiff are immediately executory (Inland Trailways Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 178 [1996]). Thus, in order to avoid further injustice to a lawful possession, an immediate execution of judgment of eviction is mandated and a court's duty to order such execution is practically ministerial (Puncia vs. Gerona, 252 SCRA 425 [1996]).

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby denied due course.

SO ORDERED.