G.R. No. 161811 ; April 12, 2006
THE CITY OF BAGUIO, MAURICIO DOMOGAN, and ORLANDO GENOVE, Petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO NIÑO, JOSEFINA NIÑO, EMMANUEL NIÑO, and EURLIE OCAMPO, Respondents.

FACTS

The Bureau of Lands awarded Lot No. 10 in Baguio City to Narcisa Placino. Respondent Francisco Niño, who was occupying the lot, contested the award. His petition was dismissed by the Director of Lands in 1976, a decision which became final after unsuccessful appeals. To enforce this final order, the DENR-CAR issued an Order of Execution in 1993. After failed attempts at enforcement and a dismissed ejectment case, the DENR-CAR amended its Order of Execution, directing its CENRO Officer to enforce it with the assistance of the Baguio City Sheriff, Demolition Team, and Police.
On July 16, 1997, the Baguio City Demolition Team and Police, acting on orders, began demolishing the houses of the respondents. The demolition was temporarily halted by a DENR officer, who scheduled a new date. The Niño spouses, along with other respondents, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the RTC to challenge the Amended Order of Execution. The RTC dismissed their petition.

ISSUE

Whether the demolition of the respondents’ structures, ordered by the City Mayor and carried out by city agents pursuant to a DENR Amended Order of Execution, was valid without a special court order as required under Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals decision, which ordered the city officials to cease and desist from enforcing the demolition order. The legal logic is anchored on the proper application of procedural rules governing the execution of judgments for specific acts. Section 10(d), Rule 39 explicitly mandates that when the property subject of execution contains improvements made by the judgment obligor, the officer shall not destroy or remove them “except upon special order of the court.” This requirement is compulsory.
The Court held that the final 1976 decision of the Director of Lands, which the DENR sought to execute, was a judgment for a specific act—the vacation of the lot and removal of improvements. Consequently, its enforcement must comply with Rule 39. The Amended Order of Execution issued by the DENR Regional Executive Director is not equivalent to the “special order of the court” required by the rule. Only a court of law can issue such a special order after a motion by the judgment obligee and a due hearing. The participation of the City Mayor and other petitioners in the demolition, based solely on the DENR’s amended order, was therefore illegal. The Court rejected the petitioners’ new argument—raised only in their Motion for Reconsideration before the CA—that the Mayor had independent power under the Local Government Code to demolish structures without permits, as this defense was belatedly introduced and not properly pleaded in the proceedings below.