G.R. No. 97477 May 8, 1992
RTC JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur and the MUNICIPALITY OF DUMINGAG, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR; represented by MAYOR DOMICIANO E. REAL, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, VICENTE MEDINA and FORTUNATA ROSELLON, respondents.

FACTS

On September 24, 1990, the Municipality of Dumingag, represented by its Mayor, filed a complaint for “Ejectment with Preliminary Injunction and Damages” against respondents Vicente Medina and Fortunata Rosellon in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) presided by Judge Camilo E. Tamin. The complaint alleged that the municipality owned a parcel of land reserved as a public plaza under Presidential Proclamation No. 365; that a portion was leased to respondents in 1958 with a condition to vacate if needed for public purposes; that respondents stopped paying rentals in 1967; that respondents filed a cadastral answer over the lot; and that the national government’s appropriation for a municipal gymnasium on the plaza was in jeopardy due to respondents’ structures. The complaint prayed for a restraining order, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and/or a writ of possession, and for judgment ordering respondents to vacate. On the same day, Judge Tamin set a hearing for the preliminary injunction/writ of possession. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the action was for illegal detainer (within municipal court jurisdiction) and due to a pending cadastral case over the same land. On October 10, 1990, Judge Tamin issued two orders: one denying the motion to dismiss, ruling the action was an accion de reivindicacion (recovery of ownership) within RTC jurisdiction, and another granting the municipality’s motion for a writ of possession with an ancillary writ of demolition, analogizing to the rule on eminent domain to prevent delay in public construction. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 19, 1990, and the writs were implemented, resulting in respondents’ dispossession and demolition of their structures. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, in an action for recovery of possession of land alleged to be for public use, may issue a writ of possession and a writ of demolition prior to a final judgment on the merits.

RULING

No. The Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the RTC orders was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that while the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint as an action for recovery of possession (accion de reivindicacion), following the doctrine in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, it had no authority to issue a writ of possession and a writ of demolition at that stage. The writ of possession is a special remedy available only in specific instances: (1) land registration proceedings, (2) extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, (3) judicial foreclosure of mortgage (under certain conditions), and (4) execution sales. The trial court’s analogy to the rule on eminent domain (Rule 67) was erroneous because under that rule, the government’s right to take possession is conditioned upon the deposit of the value of the property as provisional compensation, which was not done in this case. The Supreme Court ordered the trial court to require the petitioner municipality to post a bond to answer for just compensation due to the respondents in case the demolition is later adjudged illegal. The petition was dismissed.