GR 179161; (January, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179161 ; January 22, 2010
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. DKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) leased a parcel of land from the Philippine Government. PNB applied to sublease a portion to respondent DKS International, Inc. (DKS), but the Land Management Bureau (LMB) initially denied the request. While PNB’s application for lease renewal and DKS’s sublease were pending, DKS forcibly took possession of the subject property on October 9, 2002. PNB filed a forcible entry case against DKS. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of PNB, ordering DKS to vacate and surrender possession to PNB. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision and issued a Writ of Execution with Break Open Order. Before the writ could be implemented, DKS and the government (through LMB) filed motions, alleging that the government had already repossessed the property upon the expiration of PNB’s lease and after PNB’s application for a temporary restraining order against the government’s repossession was denied. The RTC initially denied the motions but, upon reconsideration, recalled the Writ of Execution based on a Sheriff’s Partial Return stating that the premises were already occupied by government security personnel and DKS was no longer in possession, having surrendered it to the government. PNB’s petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals was denied. PNB elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Was the recall of the Writ of Execution with Break Open Order by the Regional Trial Court proper?
RULING
Yes, the recall was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The purpose of a writ of execution in an ejectment case is to restore the physical possession of the property to the prevailing party. The Sheriff’s Return established that DKS was no longer in possession of the property; possession had been surrendered to the government (the lessor). Since the defendant (DKS) against whom the writ was issued no longer had possession, the writ could no longer be enforced against it. The duty of the sheriff is to serve the writ upon the defendant and, if the defendant refuses to vacate, to oust them. If the defendant is no longer in possession, the writ cannot be implemented. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling the writ. The Court also noted that the RTC’s decision in the ejectment case was immediately executory, and the recall of the writ did not nullify or reverse the judgment but merely recognized a supervening event (DKS’s loss of possession) that rendered the writ unenforceable.