ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 147522.July 16, 2001]

CAPALAD et al. vs. BAGUS

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 16 2001.

G.R. No. 147522(Antonio Capalad, et al. vs. Tolentino Bagus.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Antonio Capalad, Armando Capalad, Edgardo Ordo�ez and Estrella Ordo�ez (petitioners) seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolution, dated March 22, 2001, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-Q.R. SP No. 63674. In said resolution, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners therewith for lack of merit.

The CA affirmed the Order, dated February 22, 2001, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121 of Caloocan City directing the issuance of a writ of demolition. Petitioners now come to the Court assailing said order of demolition. They argue that the same was issued on the basis merely of a manifestation filed by respondent Tolentino Bagus, (plaintiff in the complaint a quo) and not upon a motion. No hearing was set thereon, thus, petitioners were allegedly deprived of due process.

The instant petition is bereft of merit.

It must be noted that the assailed order of the trial court was issued after its decision on the action for recovery of possession with damages filed by respondent had already become final and executory. The trial court's decision, dated December 28, 1998, declared respondent the rightful owner of the lot subject of the complaint and accordingly directed petitioners to vacate the same.

When said decision became final and executory, the trial court, upon motion filed by respondent, issued a writ of demolition, dated April 22, 1999. Similarly, on July 30, 1999, the trial court issued an order directing the sheriff to demolish the property subject matter of the writ of execution for the satisfaction of judgment. The implementation of these orders, however, was held in abeyance in view of the filing by petitioners of a petition for certiorari and injunction with the CA.

����������� After the denial of the petition for certiorari by the CA, petitioners then filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 143887, but the same was denied in our Resolution, dated September 13, 2000. Petitioners' motion, for reconsideration was denied with finality on November 22, 2000.

Consequently, respondent filed with the trial court the manifestation informing said court that it may now lift the suspension of the implementation of its earlier orders of April 22, 1999 and July 30, 1999. Acting thereon, the trial court issued the assailed order.

Contrary to petitioners' contention, the trial court's failure to set a hearing on respondent's manifestation is not fatal. No hearing was necessary considering that the trial court merely reiterated its previous orders directing the demolition. In any case, petitioners cannot rightfully claim that they were deprived of due process because they were able to file their comment/opposition to the manifestation.

Granting arguendo that the trial court ought to have set a hearing on the manifestation, still the writ of execution issued based thereon cannot be invalidated. The instant petition is obviously a dilatory move on the part of petitioners to prevent the final disposition of the case. The Court cannot countenance this practice:

Litigation must at some time be terminated, even at the risk of occasional errors, for public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory, and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. (Pallada vs. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, 304 SCRA 440 [1999])

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED 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