SIMEON G. NEPOMUCENO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. CALIXTO SAÑADO, AND SIX JOHN DOES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Nepomuceno versus Sañado

The Case

This is a suit for damages brought by Simeon Nepomuceno against Calixto Sañado and six unnamed companions, whom the record calls the John Does. Nepomuceno claims that on the fourth of June 1991, Sañado and his men unlawfully entered Fishpond Number Four, harvested fully grown tiger prawns, and destroyed a wooden water gate, all under color of a writ of execution that, Nepomuceno insists, was directed only against his co-defendant Edgar Chu and never against him. The case matters because it forces the Court to fix the legal effect of an execution issued by a trial court after it had already lost jurisdiction, and to measure a claim for damages against the settled rule that only a final and executory judgment may be executed.

Procedural History

The case is an offshoot of an earlier suit for recovery of possession and damages, Civil Case Number 2085, filed by Sañado against Nepomuceno and Chu before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Pagadian City. That court rendered judgment in Sañado's favor, ordering the defendants to restore possession of the fishpond, declaring the waiver executed by Nepomuceno in favor of Chu void, and awarding the share of the fruits, rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. Nepomuceno and Chu appealed to the Court of Appeals, Thirteenth Division. Chu's appeal was dismissed for failure to file an appellant's brief. On motion of Sañado, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, issued a writ of execution on the third of June 1991, and the writ was enforced the following day. On the eleventh of September 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with modifications but reversed it insofar as it ordered the defendants jointly to restore possession to Sañado. That decision was brought to the Supreme Court, which denied review.

Meanwhile, on the twenty-seventh of May 1997, Nepomuceno filed the present complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur. On the twenty-first of January 2010, that court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, and dismissed Sañado's counterclaim for lack of evidence. Nepomuceno appealed, and the appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it in this decision.

Facts

Sañado had long claimed a right to the fishpond area. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Pagadian City, rendered judgment on the nineteenth of June 1989 in his favor in Civil Case Number 2085. Nepomuceno and Chu appealed within the reglementary period, and the appeal was perfected and pending before the Court of Appeals. Chu's appeal was later dismissed for failure to file an appellant's brief.

Treating the judgment as final against Chu, Sañado asked the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, for execution. On the third of June 1991, that court issued a writ of execution directing the sheriff to eject Edgar Chu and all persons acting in his behalf from the fishpond at Monching, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur, and to restore Sañado to actual possession. On the fourth of June 1991, clothed with that writ, Sañado and six companions entered Fishpond Number Four and harvested the tiger prawns inside it. Nepomuceno later claimed that 2,500 kilos of prawns valued at 800,000 pesos were taken. A legal officer of the Department of Agriculture inspected the pond on the fifth of July 1991 at the request of Nepomuceno's counsel and assessed the harvested prawns at 882,000 pesos and the damage to the wooden gate at 20,000 pesos.

On the fourteenth of June 1991, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction restoring possession of the fishpond to Nepomuceno. That relief came eleven days after the writ of execution and ten days after the harvest. In the meantime, the Office of the President had revoked Sañado's fishpond license on the thirty-first of July 1989. The Supreme Court, in its decision of the seventeenth of April 2001, held that this revocation was a substantial supervening event that eliminated Sañado's right to possess the fishpond, and that any order restoring possession to him, including that of the Court of Appeals, was futile.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that Nepomuceno had been ordered by the Court of Appeals to relinquish possession of the fishpond to Sañado.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that Sañado's entry into the fishpond and gathering of its products on the fourth of June 1991 was lawful because done by virtue of the writ of execution.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing Nepomuceno's complaint for lack of cause of action.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on execution pending appeal, provides:

(a) Execution of a judgment or a final order pending appeal. On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court which has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal. After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court. Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.

This provision governs the writ of execution issued on the third of June 1991, and the Court construes it strictly because it is an exception to the general rule that only a final and executory judgment may be executed.

Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, on the loss of jurisdiction upon appeal, provides:

In appeals by notice of appeal, the 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.

This fixes the moment when the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, lost the power to issue the writ that Sañado enforced.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's premise was wrong. The Court of Appeals did not order Nepomuceno to relinquish possession to Sañado; it expressly reversed the judgment insofar as it ordered the defendants jointly to restore possession. The trial court ignored the decision of the Office of the President cancelling Sañado's license and the final finding of the Supreme Court that the cancellation eliminated his right to possess the fishpond.

On the second issue, the Court held that the execution was illegal. Although the writ named only Chu, the appeal of Nepomuceno and Chu had been perfected and was pending in the Court of Appeals when the writ issued. Under Section 9, Rule 41, the trial court had lost jurisdiction, and proceedings taken by virtue of the writ are null and void. The Court stressed that only a final and executory judgment may be executed, and that execution pending appeal, being an exception, must be strictly construed and sought before the trial court loses jurisdiction. Sañado had twice tried and failed to obtain execution from the Court of Appeals before going back to the trial court.

On the third issue, however, the Court held that Nepomuceno was not entitled to damages. The resolution of that claim depended on whether he had lawful possession of Fishpond Number Four when the writ was enforced. The Court found he did not. The contract of financing had ceased and terminated on the nineteenth of February 1979, and the only right Nepomuceno retained was a preferential right to apply for the lease in his own name. Like Sañado, he had no lawful right of possession at the relevant time, and so no possessory right of his was violated.

Doctrine

Only a final and executory judgment may be executed. Execution pending appeal is an exception that must be strictly construed, and the motion must be filed before the trial court loses jurisdiction.

Upon perfection of an appeal in due time, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case and may no longer grant a motion for, or issue, a writ of execution. A writ issued thereafter, and all proceedings taken by virtue of it, are null and void.

A claim for damages founded on a wrongful execution requires that the plaintiff prove a lawful possessory right that was violated. A party who himself had no right of possession at the relevant time cannot recover, even if the execution against him was illegal.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, dismissing the complaint for damages, was affirmed, although the Court declared the execution illegal and held that Nepomuceno had no lawful possession to protect.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a writ of execution issued by the trial court after the appeal has been perfected is void, and everything done under it is void. Examiners use this case to test the loss of jurisdiction upon appeal under Section 9, Rule 41, and the strict construction of execution pending appeal under Section 2, Rule 39.