GR 84954; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84954 ; March 22, 1991
CIELITO SANTOS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 57, Makati, Metro Manila, and RHODERICK CASIS, respondents.
FACTS
The dispute involves a house and lot originally owned by Nenita Suroza. Petitioner Cielito Santos redeemed the property from a mortgage and purchased it from Suroza via a deed of sale dated February 10, 1983. Subsequently, Suroza fraudulently reconstituted the title and sold the same property to private respondent Rhoderick Casis on July 19, 1983. Casis, armed with a new certificate of title, filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 6253) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) against Santos, seeking to recover possession. The MTC, after hearings, issued an Order dated September 26, 1983, denying Casis’s application for a preliminary mandatory injunction and effectively ruling that Santos was entitled to prior possession. The MTC’s Order of November 20, 1984 denied reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the MTC Orders dated September 26, 1983 and November 20, 1984, which resolved the issue of possession in the forcible entry case, are final and executory, thereby making their execution a matter of right.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the MTC Orders were final, not interlocutory. In a forcible entry case, the sole issue is physical or material possession (possession de facto). The MTC, in its September 26, 1983 Order, expressly and categorically resolved this singular issue after protracted hearings, declaring petitioner Santos as the party entitled to prior possession based on evidence of his earlier possession dating from the sale to him. The Order left nothing more to be adjudicated by the MTC on the question of possession. Consequently, the Orders constituted a final disposition of the ejectment case. Since no appeal was taken from these Orders, they became final and executory. Under the Rules, a final and executory judgment entitles the prevailing party to a writ of execution as a matter of right. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals therefore erred in enjoining the execution of these final Orders. The case was remanded to the MTC for enforcement of the writ of execution.