G.R. No. 126462 November 12, 2002
NATALIA REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (former Ninth Division), JUSTICE ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, Chairman, JUSTICE MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ and JUSTICE RUBEN T. REYES, members, ANTONIO MARTINEZ, FELIPE PADUA, MARIO PERFECTO and HERMITO SALODEGA, respondents, 359-A MULTI PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, intervenor.

FACTS

On January 24, 1984, Natalia Realty, Inc. (petitioner) filed an action for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 359-A) against private respondents (Antonio Martinez, Felipe Padua, Mario Perfecto and Hermito Salodega) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on January 30, 1984. On August 26, 1991, the RTC dismissed the case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute. On April 20, 1992, the RTC issued another order granting private respondents’ motions to order petitioner to surrender possession of portions of the subject property to them. These orders became final. Petitioner’s petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 30787) was dismissed on June 18, 1993, and this dismissal became final on October 20, 1993.
On December 27, 1993, Felipe Navarro, claiming to be the original counsel of private respondents, filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution in the RTC to enforce the August 26, 1991 and April 20, 1992 orders. On March 7, 1994, Judge Querubin denied the motion, ruling the complaint was not a class suit, the dismissal could not include a disposition restoring possession, and execution would violate the Supreme Court’s decision in Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian Reform. Navarro’s appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 44915) was dismissed by the CA on February 6, 1995, as Navarro was a disbarred lawyer with no authority to file the appeal.
On March 15, 1995, private respondents filed a new motion for execution. Instead of ruling on it, Judge Querubin wrote a letter dated April 17, 1995, to the Ninth Division of the CA inquiring what final orders and decisions to enforce. On June 27, 1995, the CA issued a Resolution ordering Judge Querubin to enforce the RTC’s orders dated August 26, 1991 and April 20, 1992, and the CA’s decision dated June 18, 1993. On August 3, 1995, Judge Querubin issued an order granting private respondents’ motion for execution pursuant to the CA’s June 27, 1995 Resolution. Judge Querubin later inhibited himself, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 71 presided by Judge Caballes. On November 6, 1995, Judge Caballes granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, citing the Supreme Court’s Natalia Realty vs. DAR decision as a supervening event.
On December 6, 1995, private respondents filed an “Urgent Manifestation with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Execution” with the CA. On June 19, 1996, the CA issued a Resolution reiterating its June 27, 1995 Resolution and requiring Judge Caballes to explain why he should not be held in contempt. On August 26, 1996, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Resolutions dated June 27, 1995, June 19, 1996, and August 26, 1996, which ordered the execution of the RTC’s August 26, 1991 and April 20, 1992 orders and the CA’s June 18, 1993 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 30787.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The CA’s June 27, 1995 Resolution was a proper response to Judge Querubin’s query, made in the interest of justice to avoid further confusion, and did not deprive petitioner of due process as petitioner was able to file a motion to set it aside. The orders and decision ordered executed had long become final and executory. The August 26, 1991 RTC order dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession. The April 20, 1992 RTC order, which directed petitioner to surrender possession to private respondents, was a logical consequence of the dismissal, as the dismissal of an action for recovery of possession necessarily entitles the defendant to remain in possession. The CA’s June 18, 1993 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 30787 dismissed petitioner’s challenge to these orders. All these had attained finality.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian Reform (declaring the subject lands exempt from CARP coverage) was not a supervening event that would bar execution. A supervening event must render the execution unjust or impossible. The DAR case did not involve the issue of possession between the parties in Civil Case No. 359-A and did not annul the final orders in that case regarding possession. The right to possess based on a final judgment cannot be defeated by a supervening event arising from a separate proceeding.
The Court also noted that the motion for intervention filed by the 359-A Multi Purpose Cooperative was filed too late, after judgment had become final, and the cooperative’s rights could be protected in a separate proceeding.
The Supreme Court ordered the RTC to forthwith issue and cause to be immediately enforced an alias writ of execution of the Order of August 3, 1995, granting possession to private respondents of portions of the subject parcels of land.