G.R. No. 136294. September 28, 1999.
MARIA G. BALUYUT, BEATRIZ G. DAVID, CONSOLACION G. ZAMORA, PURITA G. TONGOL, LUZ G. VIRAY, JOSE S. GUIAO and JESUS GUIAO, petitioners, vs. RODOLFO GUIAO, TRINIDAD G. MANDAL, SPOUSES NICOLAS TUBIL and ILUMINADA CANLAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint to declare null and void a donation of a 245.42 sqm. portion of land executed by Rosario S. Vda. De Guiao in favor of respondents Rodolfo Guiao and Trinidad G. Mandal, and the subsequent sale of that portion by said respondents to respondent spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the donation void and ordering the reconveyance of the lot to Rosario S. Vda. De Guiao. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint, a decision which became final and executory. After the record was returned to the RTC, respondent spouses Tubil filed a motion for issuance of a writ of possession, which the RTC granted. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession, arguing that the dismissal of the complaint did not give rise to a right to take possession. The RTC denied the motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Notice of Appeal from the order denying the motion to quash, which the RTC also denied. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which, while noting the RTC erred in denying the notice of appeal, dismissed the petition, ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession. Petitioners filed the instant petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession in favor of the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review. The Court held that petitioners are estopped from questioning the Court of Appeals’ ruling on the propriety of the writ of possession, as they themselves raised it as an assigned error in their petition for certiorari before the appellate court. The Court of Appeals, in discussing the issue, merely substantiated its ruling that the lower court did not err in granting the writ. The Court further noted that ordering the lower court to forward the records for a review on appeal, when the issue had already been properly ruled upon by the appellate court, would only result in protracted litigation inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.