G.R. No. 205074 and G.R. No. 231518, June 26, 2023
JOEL CORDERO, CAROLINA RAMOS, ESTRELLA REYES, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HER HEIR, NAPOLEON DAMAYO, JR., A.K.A. “JUN DAMAYO,” BRENDA VILLAFUERTE, ANTONIO ULAT, CARLOS PAQUERA, CAROLINA PAQUERA, ELSA SANCHEZ, MARIA LORNA A. LOOS, BERNARDO VILLAGRACIA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS HEIR, JOEL VILLAGRACIA, REBECCA TEJERO, EULALIA JARON, SHIRLEY ULAT, AND MARIE ALBA JOSEPHINE SANTIANES, PETITIONERS, VS. GUTIERREZ DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Gutierrez Development Co., Inc. filed a Petition for fixing the period of lease and adjustment of lease rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against petitioners, who were occupying its land in Davao City. Respondent alleged it was the registered owner of the land, petitioners were allowed to stay initially by tolerance and later by paying a token monthly rental of PHP 100.00 each, and petitioners had been neglecting to pay. Petitioners countered and filed a counterclaim seeking payment for improvements they introduced on the lot. The RTC rendered a Decision on August 31, 2006, fixing the lease period at two years reckoned from the date of the decision, with monthly rentals at PHP 100.00 each. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 00991-MIN, affirmed the RTC ruling in a Decision dated September 25, 2008, but noted the two-year period had already lapsed from August 26, 2006. Consequently, the CA deemed the lease contract terminated and ordered petitioners to turn over possession to respondent. This CA Decision became final and executory. Respondent then filed a Motion for Execution before the RTC, which was granted via an Order dated September 18, 2009, leading to the issuance of a Writ of Execution. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Petitioners filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 03631-MIN), including a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI). The CA, in a Resolution dated December 29, 2011, denied the prayer for TRO/WPI. This denial is the subject of G.R. No. 205074. Subsequently, the CA rendered a Decision on June 22, 2016, denying petitioners’ Rule 65 petition on the merits and affirming the RTC Orders. This Decision is the subject of G.R. No. 231518.

ISSUE

1. In G.R. No. 205074, whether the CA correctly denied petitioners’ prayer for a TRO and/or WPI.
2. In G.R. No. 231518, whether the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it issued the Orders directing the issuance of a Writ of Execution.

RULING

1. The Petition in G.R. No. 205074 is dismissed for being moot and academic. The CA’s supervening promulgation of its Decision on the merits in CA-G.R. SP No. 03631-MIN rendered the issue on the propriety of denying the TRO/WPI, which was a mere incident of the main case, moot. A case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, and a ruling on the issue would have no practical legal effect.
2. The Petition in G.R. No. 231518 is denied for lack of merit. The CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The RTC Orders directing execution were issued in accordance with the final and executory Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 00991-MIN. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, and execution is a matter of right for the prevailing party. The RTC was merely enforcing a final judgment, and petitioners failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the execution orders.