[ G.R. Nos. 226199 and 227242-54. October 01, 2018 ] 840 Phil. 734
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 226199 and 227242-54. October 01, 2018 ]
ROSITA TUASON MARAVILLA AND CORAZON TUASON[] MIRANDA, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO, PETITIONERS, V. MARCELINO BUGARIN, ANGELITA CONTRERAS, BENJAMIN LAZATIN, LOURDES MANIQUIZ, EDELBERTO[] PADLAN, REMEDIOS NAVARRO, JOSE PANGAN, EDUVEGES[*] REYES, ALEXANDER CRUZ, PRISCILLA CORTEZ, MILA LAJA, ANTONIO DAANAY, GENEROSA SISON, PERFECTO DELA VEGA, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Orders dated March 18, 2016[2] and July 28, 2016[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (RTC-Manila), Branch 47 (court a quo) in Civil Case Nos. 13-130387-130400, suspending the issuance of the writ of execution of its Consolidated Decision[4] dated November 17, 2014 against respondents in an unlawful detainer case grounded on the existence of a supervening event, i.e., the filing of an eminent domain petition (expropriation case) over the subject land.
The Facts
The instant case stemmed from separate complaints[5] for unlawful detainer (ejectment cases) filed by petitioners Rosita Tuason Maravilla and Corazon Tuason Miranda, through their attorney-in-fact, Rubencito M. del Mundo (petitioners), before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) between November 16 to 25, 2011, seeking to eject respondents Marcelino Bugarin, Angelita Contreras, Benjamin Lazatin, Lourdes Maniquiz, Edelberto Padlan, Remedios Navarro, Jose Pangan, Eduveges Reyes, Alexander Cruz, Priscilla Cortez, Mila Laja, Antonio Daanay, Generosa Sison, Perfecto Dela Vega, and all other persons claiming rights under them (respondents), from the portions ofthe parcel of land located in San Andres, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31697[6] (subject land) in the name of petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, Carlos Tuason. The complaints commonly claimed that: (a) respondents have been in physical possession of the subject land and paying monthly rentals until November 10, 2010; (b) petitioners decided to terminate the leases effective March 17, 2011; (c) respondents refused petitioners’ demands to pay and to vacate; and (d) the complaints were filed within one (1) year from the last demand.[7]
The complaints were consolidated before the MeTC, Branch 29 which rendered a Decision[8] dated May 28, 2013 in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate the subject land and surrender its possession to petitioners, and to pay: (a) their respective unpaid rentals as of the termination of the lease on March 17, 2011; (b) P5,000.00 each as reasonable monthly compensation for the use and occupation of the subject land every month thereafter; (c) attorney’s fees; and (d) the costs of suit.[9]
The RTC-Manila Proceedings
In a Consolidated Decision[10] dated November 17, 2014, the court a quo affirmed the MeTC Decision in toto,[11] prompting respondents to file an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 138449.[12] On the other hand, petitioners moved for execution[13] of the Consolidated Decision, citing Section 21,[14] Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The motion was opposed[15] by respondents, who contended that supervening events have transpired that would render the execution of the said Decision inequitable, i.e., the City of Manila had: (a) passed several ordinances authorizing the City Mayor to acquire the subject land and appropriating funds therefor;[16] and (b) already made a formal offer to purchase the subject land.[17] Petitioners countered[18] that respondents failed to comply with the requirements for the stay of the execution of the judgment, and thus, reiterated their motion for execution.[19]
In an Order[20] dated April 20, 2015, the court a quo directed the issuance of a writ of execution of the Consolidated Decision, holding that respondents failed to substantiate their claim of the existence of a supervening event. Respondents moved for reconsideration,[21] but the same was denied in an Order[22] dated June 30, 2015.
Subsequently, respondents filed an Amended Motion to Deny/Suspend Issuance of Writ of Execution[23] dated January 28, 2016, raising the filing by the City of Manila before the RTC-Manila of an expropriation case over the subject land,[24] docketed as Civil Case No. 15-134874, which led to the issuance of an Order[25] dated March 18, 2016, suspending the issuance of the writ of execution of the said Consolidated Decision.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[26] but the same was denied in an Order[27] dated July 28, 2016; hence, the instant petition.
Meanwhile, the CA rendered a Decision[28] denying respondents’ appeal in CA-G.R. SP. No. 138449.[29] On February 17, 2017, a Decision[30] was rendered by the RTC-Manila, Branch 42 in the expropriation case declaring the City of Manila to have the lawful right to take the subject land, and ordering it to pay the amount of P31,262,000.00[31] less the amount of initial deposit,[32] as the just compensation for the subject land.
The Issue before the Court
The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the court a quo erred in suspending the issuance of the writ of execution of its decision against respondents in the ejectment cases on the ground of the existence of a supervening event.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
In ejectment cases, the judgment of the RTC against the defendant-appellant is immediately executory,[33] and is not stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the RTC, or in the appellate court’s discretion, suspended or modified,[34] or supervening events occur which have brought about a material change in the situation of the parties and would make the execution inequitable.[35]
In this case, the court a quo, through its March 18, 2016 and July 28, 2016 Orders (assailed Orders), suspended the execution of its November 17, 2014 Consolidated Decision against respondents in the ejectment cases. Essentially, it ruled that the City of Manila’s filing of the expropriation case to acquire the subject land constituted a supervening event that warranted the aforesaid suspension.[36]
The Court disagrees.
There is no dispute that at the time the assailed Orders were issued the City of Manila had filed an expropriation case to acquire the subject land, and in fact, obtained a ruling in its favor. These occurrences notwithstanding, records fail to show that the City of Manila had either: (1) priorly posted the required judicial deposit in favor of petitioners in order to secure possession of the subject land, in accordance with Section 19[37] of the Local Government Code of 1991;[38] or (2) paid the original landowners, i.e., Carlos Tuason’s living heirs (the petitioners herein),[39] the adjudged final just compensation for the subject land so as to consider the expropriation process completed and consequently, effectuate the transfer of ownership to it.[40] Thus, at the time the assailed Orders were issued, petitioners remained the owners of the subject land, and therefore were entitled to all the rights appurtenant thereto.
The Court, however, is at a quandary as to how the City of Manila’s interest in the expropriation case bears any direct relation to respondents’ interest in the ejectment cases, given that the latter were not, in any manner, shown to benefit from the expropriation of the subject property. A perusal of Ordinance No. 8274[41] which authorized the City Mayor of Manila to cause the acquisition of the subject land (in line with the on-site development[42] project of the city[43]) reveals that respondents have not been specifically named as beneficiaries, the expropriation having been made for the benefit of “the qualified members/beneficiaries of the San Andres and Silayan Alley Neighborhood Association, Inc.,"[44] of which they have not been shown to be members. Thus, even if the expropriation process be completed, it is non sequitur for respondents to claim[45] that they are automatically entitled to be beneficiaries thereof, for certain requirements must still be met and complied with.[46] Stated differently, absent any competent proof showing that respondents have been identified and registered as socialized housing program beneficiaries[47] for the particular locality/project, they cannot claim any right over the subject land on the basis of the said ordinance, on which the expropriation case is anchored. Consequently, the Court finds that respondents failed to establish the existence of any supervening event or overriding consideration of equity in their favor, or any other compelling reason, to justify the court a quo’s issuance of the assailed Orders suspending the execution of its Consolidated Decision against them pending appeal.
A final point. The Court is not unaware of the fact that subsequent to the issuance of the assailed Orders, the City of Manila has already been issued a writ of possession in the expropriation case, which therefore authorizes it to take actual possession of the subject land. However, the Court discerns that the City of Manila is not a party to this case, given that it sprung from the ejectment cases which essentially involve a dispute on the mere material possession of the subject land only between the petitioners and respondents herein. As earlier mentioned, respondents have no direct interest and hence, should not benefit from any ruling favoring the City of Manila in the expropriation case. Thus, under this limited context, the Court finds it proper to completely reverse the assailed Orders, and allow full execution of the Consolidated Decision insofar as the parties herein are concerned. Suffice it to say that nothing precludes the City of Manila from enforcing the writ of possession it obtained in the expropriation case to acquire physical possession of the subject property, which circumstance the Court, however, cannot presume at this point nor, in fact, properly consider without going beyond the parameters of this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated March 18, 2016 and July 28, 2016 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47 (court a quo) in Civil Case Nos. 13-130387-130400, suspending the issuance of the writ of execution of its Consolidated Decision dated November 17, 2014 against respondents Marcelino Bugarin) Angelita Contreras, Benjamin Lazatin, Lourdes Maniquiz, Edelberto Padlan, Remedios Navarro, Jose Pangan, Eduveges Reyes, Alexander Cruz, Priscilla Cortez, Mila Laja, Antonio Daanay, Generosa Sison, Perfecto Dela Vega, and all other persons claiming rights under them, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE based on the reasons stated in this Decision. The court a quo is directed to issue a writ of execution of the Consolidated Decision dated November 17, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., and J. Reyes, Jr.,[**] JJ., concur. Caguioa, J., on official business.