G.R. No. 192463 July 13, 2015
OMAIRA LOMONDOT and SARIPA LOMONDOT, Petitioners, vs. HON. RASAD G BALINDONG, Presiding Judge, Shari’a District Court, 4th Shari’a Judicial District, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur and AMBOG PANGANDAMUAN and SIMBANATAO DIACA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Omaira and Saripa Lomondot filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against respondents Ambog Pangandamun and Simbanatao Diaca before the Shari’a District Court (SDC) of Marawi City, claiming ownership by succession of an 800 sq. meter parcel of land and alleging that respondents had illegally encroached on portions thereof. On January 31, 2005, the SDC rendered a Decision declaring petitioners as owners of the land, ordering respondents to vacate the encroached portions and remove improvements, and awarding damages. Respondents’ appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, and the SDC Decision became final and executory on October 31, 2007. Petitioners obtained a writ of execution on February 7, 2008. As respondents did not comply, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Demolition on February 3, 2009. The SDC, however, issued several orders holding the resolution in abeyance, citing negotiations and a claim by respondents that they had already complied and no longer encroached. The SDC eventually denied the motion for demolition in its Order dated November 9, 2009, directing instead that a survey be conducted by a geodetic engineer to determine if encroachment still existed. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied. Petitioners initially filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, stating that such petitions from Shari’a Courts should be filed directly with the Supreme Court since the Shari’a Appellate Court has not been organized.

ISSUE

Whether the Shari’a District Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for issuance of a writ of demolition and instead ordering a survey, after its final and executory decision and the issuance of a writ of execution.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the assailed SDC Orders, and ordered the SDC to issue a writ of demolition. The Court ruled that the SDC committed grave abuse of discretion. A final and executory judgment must be executed as a matter of right, and its execution is a ministerial duty of the court. The SDC’s Decision had already determined the fact of encroachment and specifically identified the encroached areas in the evidence (Exhibits “A” and “K”). The respondents’ mere claim of having vacated and no longer encroaching constituted a supervening event that was not valid, as it was a factual issue already conclusively settled by the final judgment. Ordering a new survey to re-determine the fact of encroachment was an unwarranted deviation from the final judgment and effectively altered or modified it, which is prohibited. The proper course was to execute the judgment, and if respondents believed they had already complied, they should have presented proof to the sheriff or filed a separate action, not resist the execution through a motion in the same case. The SDC’s orders unjustly delayed the execution of a final judgment.