G.R. No. 134462 ; October 18, 2004
MAYON ESTATE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MARIETTA ALTURA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mayon Estate Corporation, along with co-owners, filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 890) in 1976 against certain individuals and associations. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner in 1979, ordering the defendants to vacate. A writ of execution was issued in 1980 but was not fully implemented. In 1985, the MTC granted a motion for a writ of demolition. Respondents then filed a Petition for Prohibition (Civil Case No. 739-A) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the demolition, arguing the 1979 judgment could no longer be executed by motion as more than five years had lapsed. The petitioner was declared in default in this prohibition case.
The RTC decided in favor of the respondents in 1986, issuing a writ of prohibition against enforcing the MTC decision. This RTC decision became final and executory. Despite this, the MTC, upon the petitioner’s motions, subsequently issued second, third, and fourth alias writs of demolition between 1988 and 1995, leading to partial demolitions. In 1995, the respondents themselves moved to lift the writ of prohibition to allow full execution. The RTC granted this motion. The petitioner appealed this order lifting the prohibition, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s order which effectively lifted the writ of prohibition and allowed the execution of the 1979 MTC judgment to proceed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal logic rests on the finality of the RTC’s 1986 decision in the prohibition case (Civil Case No. 739-A). That decision, which became final after the petitioner failed to appeal, declared that the MTC’s 1979 judgment could only be enforced by an independent action, not by motion, as the five-year period for execution by motion had lapsed. This final judgment constituted the “law of the case” between the parties.
Consequently, the various alias writs of demolition issued by the MTC after 1986 were void, as they contravened the final and executory writ of prohibition. The RTC’s 1995 order lifting its own writ of prohibition was a legal nullity; a final judgment cannot be amended or reversed by the court that rendered it. The proper remedy for the petitioner after the prohibition became final was to file an independent action to revive the 1979 judgment under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, not to seek successive alias writs. The petitioner’s negligence in allowing the prohibition judgment to become final precludes it from assailing that judgment’s validity now. The execution process must restart through the proper procedural vehicle of a revival action.