G.R. No. 119328 July 26, 1996
PROVIDENT INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE, represented by MAYOR PABLO R. OLIVARES, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of Parañaque filed an expropriation case against Provident International Resources Corporation (PIRC) to acquire land for a new municipal building. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted Parañaque’s ex-parte motion for a writ of possession, allowing it to take control of the property upon deposit of the required sum. PIRC subsequently moved for reconsideration, arguing lack of jurisdiction because the subject properties were under sequestration by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and involved in a pending case before the Sandiganbayan. The RTC, Branch 61, granted PIRC’s motion, dismissed the expropriation case for lack of jurisdiction, and set aside the writ of possession.
The case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 133. Parañaque filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, while PIRC filed an urgent motion to vacate. Branch 133 denied Parañaque’s motion and issued an order directing Parañaque to vacate the property and surrender it to PIRC. Parañaque then filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal and vacation orders. The RTC gave due course to the appeal and ordered the transmittal of the entire record to the Court of Appeals. Despite the perfected appeal and the order for transmittal, the RTC subsequently granted PIRC’s motion and issued a writ of execution to enforce the order to vacate.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC’s order of execution that directed Parañaque to vacate the property during the pendency of its appeal.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed that the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution after it had already given due course to Parañaque’s appeal and ordered the transmittal of the records. The perfection of an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the case, and any order issued thereafter is null and void. The only exceptions are for issues incidental to the appeal that are not involved in the appealed judgment. Here, the order to vacate was the very subject of the appeal; its execution would have rendered the appeal moot and ineffectual.
The legal logic is grounded in the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and finality of judgments. Once an appeal is perfected and the records are ordered elevated, the trial court loses authority to alter or enforce the appealed decision. The RTC’s act of executing its own order while the appeal was pending was an invalid exercise of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its supervisory authority to annul the void order, thereby preserving Parañaque’s right to a meaningful appeal and preventing a premature execution that could not be undone if the appeal succeeded. The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing such execution would undermine the appellate process and the rule of law.