GR 183102; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183102 ; February 27, 2013
MACARIO DIAZ CARPIO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES GELACIO G. ORIA and MARCELINA PRE ORIA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Macario Carpio filed an action for unlawful detainer against respondents Spouses Oria, alleging encroachment on his property. The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the dismissal, but the Court of Appeals, via a Petition for Review, remanded the case to the RTC to be tried as an accion publiciana. The RTC subsequently ruled in favor of Carpio, ordering the spouses to vacate and pay rentals. Carpio secured a writ of execution pending appeal, leading to a public auction where he acquired title to a levied property of the spouses. Meanwhile, the spouses appealed the RTC decision on the merits (CA-G.R. CV No. 87256) and separately challenged the grant of immediate execution via certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 84632). In the certiorari case, the CA annulled the writ of execution for lack of a stated good reason in a special order, a ruling which became final after the Supreme Court denied Carpio’s petition. Subsequently, with the main accion publiciana appeal still pending, Carpio filed a Manifestation/Motion to dismiss that appeal, arguing it was rendered moot by the already-implemented execution and the transfer of title.
ISSUE
Whether the pending appeal in the main accion publiciana case has been rendered moot and academic by the prior implementation of a writ of execution that was later annulled with finality.
RULING
No, the appeal is not moot. The Court ruled that the execution was void from the beginning, as the CA had definitively annulled the RTC’s order granting immediate execution for failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of stating a good reason in a special order under Rule 39, Section 2. A void order produces no legal effects. Consequently, all acts performed pursuant to that void writ, including the auction sale and the transfer of title to Carpio, are likewise void and must be considered as never having taken place. The legal situation must be reverted to the status quo ante the void execution. Therefore, a justiciable controversy remains for the appellate court to resolve on the merits of the accion publiciana case, such as determining the existence of encroachment and the right to possession. The appeal can still grant substantial relief to the parties, including the possible restoration of possession and nullification of the void title transfer, precluding a finding of mootness. The CA correctly denied the motion to dismiss the appeal.