EMMA SANCHEZ, ISABEL VDA. DE MONILAR, RICARDO ESPANA, LELIA BAUTISTA, PANCRASIO BAUTISTA, MICHELLE CAMPO, MARGARITA TOQUERO, ELDIFONSO DIOSMA, EMELITA PURISIMA, GREGORIO DIOSMA,…

Sanchez versus Vda. de Monilar

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Emma Sanchez and the other petitioners, who were the defendants in an unlawful detainer case, against the orders of a regional trial court that refused to hold in abeyance the enforcement of a writ of demolition. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to annul two orders of the trial court: the order denying their prayer to suspend the enforcement of the order for the issuance of a writ of demolition, and the order denying their motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it settles a point every bar candidate must know cold: a regional trial court decision in an ejectment case is immediately executory, and a writ of demolition is a mere adjunct to the writ of execution. It also reminds us how narrow and demanding the remedy of certiorari is when grave abuse of discretion is alleged.

Procedural History

The private respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Toledo City. After completing proceedings, that court rendered an amended judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The petitioners appealed to the regional trial court, which affirmed the amended judgment in toto. The petitioners then filed a petition for review of the regional trial court decision before the Supreme Court. While that petition was pending, the private respondents filed a motion for a writ of execution, which the regional trial court granted. After the writ of execution was served, the private respondents filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition. The trial court granted that motion and later denied the petitioners' prayer to hold enforcement in abeyance, and denied their motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

Facts

The petitioners were the defendants in a case for unlawful detainer filed against them by the private respondents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Toledo City. After trial, that court rendered an amended judgment ordering all the defendants to vacate the lot and surrender possession to the plaintiffs, to pay a monthly amount for the use of the property, and to pay attorney's fees and litigation expenses, with costs against the defendants.

The petitioners appealed, but the regional trial court affirmed the amended judgment in toto. The petitioners then filed a petition for review of that decision before the Supreme Court. While the petition for review was pending, the private respondents moved for a writ of execution, which the trial court granted. After the writ of execution was served on the petitioners, the private respondents moved for the issuance of a writ of demolition.

While that motion was pending, the petitioners, through a new counsel, filed a rejoinder against the issuance of a writ of demolition and asked for time to file a separate civil action to annul and cancel a free patent title they claimed the private respondents had irregularly procured. The trial court denied the prayer, held that the matters raised could best be threshed out in the Court of Appeals, and ordered the writ of demolition issued and enforced. It noted that the Rules of Court provide for restitution according to equity should the executed judgment be reversed on appeal. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, so they filed this petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the regional trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance and enforcement of a writ of demolition despite the pendency of the petitioners' appeal.
• Whether or not the judgment of the regional trial court in an ejectment case is immediately executory, such that execution and demolition may proceed pending appeal.
• Whether or not the petitioners established grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction to warrant the annulment of the assailed orders.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides:

Section 21. Appeal. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

This is the core provision: it makes the regional trial court decision in an ejectment case immediately executory, which is precisely why execution and demolition could proceed despite the appeal.

Section 21 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.

This reinforces the same rule, confirming that the judgment against the defendant is enforceable at once even while a further appeal is taken.

Section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support. The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party.

This provision supplies the general rule that judgments declared immediately executory are not stayed by appeal, which the Court applied to the ejectment judgment.

Section 8 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. (a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner. The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. However, before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the appeal shall stay the judgment or final order unless the Court of Appeals, the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise.

This provision confirms the exception: in civil cases decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the appeal does not stay the judgment, which is exactly the situation of an ejectment case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the regional trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering the writ of demolition. The Court explained that the directive to demolish is but an adjunct to the writ of execution already granted and served after the trial court affirmed the judgment of the municipal trial court in toto.

On the second issue, the Court held that the judgment of the regional trial court in an ejectment case is immediately executory. Reading Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure together with Section 21 of Rule 70, Section 4 of Rule 39, and Section 8 of Rule 42, the Court stressed that no resolutory condition was imposed that would prevent or stay execution. The judgment is enforceable upon rendition and, upon motion, immediately executory notwithstanding an appeal. The Court put the rule plainly:

It is clear from the foregoing provisions that a judgment of the RTC in appeal to it of an ejectment case is immediately executory.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners failed to establish grave abuse of discretion. The Court defined the term strictly: it is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Certiorari, the Court said, is restricted to truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court is wholly void. Conformity with existing rules does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

A judgment of the regional trial court in an ejectment case is immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal. This flows from Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 21 of Rule 70, and is reinforced by Section 4 of Rule 39 and Section 8 of Rule 42, which expressly except civil cases decided under the Rules on Summary Procedure from the rule that an appeal stays the judgment.

A writ of demolition is a mere adjunct to the writ of execution. Once execution is validly granted and served, the demolition order follows as a matter of course.

Grave abuse of discretion, as a ground for certiorari under Rule 65, requires a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Mere conformity with existing rules is not grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the assailed orders of the regional trial court stood; the private respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the regional trial court decision in an ejectment case is immediately executory, and a writ of demolition is a mere adjunct to the writ of execution. Examiners use this case to test the exception to the rule that an appeal stays execution, and to test the strict definition of grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65.