GR 157985; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157985 December 2, 2005
ZENAIDA BUGARIN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. CECILIA B. PALISOC, MARINA B. MATA and REYNALDO T. NEPOMUCENO, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed an ejectment complaint against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque. The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay rentals. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC decision but modified the start date for rental payments. The RTC granted the respondents’ motion for execution pending appeal because petitioners failed to post a supersedeas bond or pay accrued rentals. A writ of execution was issued and served. Petitioners refused to vacate, leading respondents to seek a special order of demolition from the MeTC. Petitioners opposed, arguing non-compliance with the notice and consultation requirements for demolition under Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279 (the Urban Development and Housing Act). The MeTC issued the demolition order, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Are the Orders of the MeTC, granting the special order of demolition, proper despite petitioners’ claim of non-compliance with R.A. No. 7279?
RULING
Yes, the MeTC orders are proper. The Supreme Court ruled that R.A. No. 7279 is inapplicable to judicial ejectment proceedings. The case involved a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action, which is immediately executory under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court to prevent further injustice to a lawful possessor. The defendant may only stay execution by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and making periodic deposits of rentals during the appeal. Petitioners failed to comply with these requisites, making the execution ministerial. The RTC decision became final as petitioners did not file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the duty to execute the judgment, including the issuance of a demolition order for obstinate refusal to vacate, became mandatory. The procedural safeguards of R.A. No. 7279 apply to eviction and demolition involving underprivileged citizens in the context of government infrastructure or development projects, not to execution of a final judgment in an ejectment suit where the plaintiff has been adjudged a lawful possessor. The law cannot be used to contravene a final and executory judgment.