G.R. No. 198172 , January 25, 2016
REGULUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Regulus Development, Inc. filed an ejectment case against respondent Antonio dela Cruz, its lessee. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled for the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals (CA) ultimately dismissed the ejectment case, a decision which became final. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent had consigned monthly rentals with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After the dismissal, the RTC, acting on a motion, granted the petitioner’s withdrawal of these consigned rentals, ruling the petitioner was entitled to them for the respondent’s use and occupation based on the lease contracts and equity. This RTC order was affirmed by the CA and subsequently by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner later moved for execution to recover additional unpaid rentals for periods covered by the consigned amounts and a supersedeas bond. The RTC granted this and issued an alias writ of execution. Claiming a remaining deficiency, the petitioner moved for a levy on the respondent’s separate real property, which the RTC also granted. The property was auctioned, with the petitioner as the highest bidder, though the respondent later redeemed it.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC acted with jurisdiction in ordering the levy on the respondent’s other real property to satisfy the claim for alleged unpaid rentals.

RULING

No, the RTC acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling nullifying the levy. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and finality of the ejectment judgment. The only judgment that became final and executory was the CA decision dismissing the ejectment complaint. Consequently, there was no longer a pending case in which the RTC could exercise its appellate jurisdiction to issue further orders for the execution of a money judgment. The RTC’s authority to allow the withdrawal of the consigned rentals and supersedeas bond was a proper exercise of its residual authority under the rules to control its processes and order the release of funds in its custody. However, the separate and subsequent order to levy upon the respondent’s other property to satisfy a purported rental deficiency constituted an entirely new execution proceeding for a sum of money. This was no longer an incident of the concluded ejectment case. A money claim must be pursued in a separate ordinary civil action, not via a continuation of execution in a dismissed ejectment suit. The RTC, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the levy.