G.R. No. L-14889. April 25, 1960.
NORBERTO LOPEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. AMADO SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Norberto Lopez and Gregorio Lopez Jr. were plaintiffs in a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 55) before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alcala, Pangasinan, against the respondents (except Judge Amando S. Santiago). The inferior court rendered a judgment on July 3, 1958 (amended July 16, 1958), ordering the defendants to vacate the disputed land, pay monthly rentals from May 28, 1958, until possession is restored, plus damages and attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Civil Case No. U-221), presided by respondent Judge. Petitioners filed a motion for execution of the judgment due to defendants’ failure to pay or deposit the required monthly rentals during the appeal. The respondent Judge initially granted this execution by order dated October 14, 1958. However, prior to that, on October 1, 1958, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, alleging the land was public land, that administrative proceedings were pending in the Bureau of Lands regarding a free patent application and protest, and that administrative remedies must be exhausted first. On November 10, 1958, the respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss but reconsidered and set aside the October 14, 1958 execution order, holding that because the land was allegedly public land, the inferior court’s decision could not be executed as the Director of Lands has control over public lands. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this original action for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering and setting aside the order of execution of the judgment in the forcible entry case, based on the ground that the disputed land is allegedly public land and that execution would interfere with the Bureau of Lands’ authority.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The order of respondent Judge dated November 10, 1958, insofar as it reconsidered and set aside the execution order of October 14, 1958, is annulled, and the October 14, 1958 order is reinstated. The Court held that the philosophy underlying forcible entry cases, under Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, is to prevent breaches of the peace by protecting the party in peaceful possession from being ousted by force, violence, or intimidation, regardless of whether the land is private or public. The purpose is to compel claimants to resort to legal processes rather than take the law into their own hands. The failure of the defendants to pay or deposit the required rentals during the appeal made the execution of the inferior court’s judgment mandatory under Section 8, Rule 72. The pendency of administrative proceedings in the Bureau of Lands does not divest the courts of their jurisdiction to enforce possession in forcible entry cases to prevent disorder. Public interest and order demand that peaceful possession be protected irrespective of the nature of the land.