G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968
ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner, vs. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On August 11, 1931, the Director of Lands approved Albina de los Santos’s homestead application for an unsurveyed public land in Tagum, Davao. Upon survey on March 4, 1937, the area was designated as Lot No. 879 (15.8648 hectares). Homestead Patent No. 67930 was issued on June 26, 1941, but was lost and never registered due to the war. On August 12, 1948, Santos petitioned the Bureau of Lands to amend her patent to include an additional 8.44 hectares from adjoining Lot 880, aiming for a total of 24 hectares. However, on February 2, 1948, Alejandro Rodriguez had filed Bureau of Fisheries Application No. 2266 covering Lots 880 and 1350, and was issued Ordinary Fishpond Permit F-639-D on July 6, 1948. Rodriguez occupied the lots in October 1948 and began constructing a fishpond. Santos protested to the Bureau of Fisheries, but the Director of Fisheries overruled her on February 16, 1950, stating her homestead was limited to Lot 879 and that Lots 880 and 1350 were within a mangrove reservation and covered by Rodriguez’s permit. Meanwhile, on September 27, 1949, Santos filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 387) against Rodriguez in the Court of First Instance of Davao, claiming a better right to possess Lots 880 and 1350. The trial court dismissed her complaint on December 9, 1955, but the Court of Appeals reversed this on September 22, 1958 (CA- G.R. No. 18912 -R), ordering Rodriguez to surrender possession of Lot 879 and 8.4365 hectares of Lot 880 to Santos, plus damages. Rodriguez’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-14727) was dismissed on February 19, 1959. Subsequently, on February 27, 1959, the Director of Fisheries denied Santos’s motion for reconsideration of the 1950 order, affirming that only Lot 879 was covered by her patent and that Lots 880 and 1350 were under Rodriguez’s permit. Santos then moved for execution of the Court of Appeals’ 1958 decision. The trial court issued a writ of execution despite opposition. On October 14, 1963, Rodriguez and the Commissioner of Fisheries filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 32970-R) to restrain the execution. The Court of Appeals treated the petition as one for certiorari and annulled the writ of execution insofar as it sought to deliver the 8.4365-hectare portion of Lot 880 to Santos. Santos appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition/certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 32970-R) and whether it erred in annulling the writ of execution for the portion of Lot 880 based on subsequent administrative determinations.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the Court of Appeals had original jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari because the trial court’s order issuing the writ of execution constituted a final disposition on the issue of execution, and an appeal would not have been a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy. Jurisdiction exists even if no case is pending on the merits, as long as processes are issued incidentally to the execution of a final decision. The Court further ruled that there was no conflict between the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA- G.R. No. 18912 -R (which determined possession pending the resolution of the homestead coverage question) and its decision in CA-G.R. No. 32970-R. The latter gave effect to the subsequent order of the Director of Fisheries (dated February 27, 1959), which definitively held that the disputed portion of Lot 880 was not part of Santos’s homestead but was covered by Rodriguez’s fishpond permit. Since events subsequent to the 1958 decision materially changed the situation—the administrative question was resolved in favor of Rodriguez—the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution for Lot 880. The principle from Hernandez vs. Clapis and Molina vs. De la Riva applies: a final judgment can no longer be executed if subsequent events render its execution unjust or inequitable. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the writ of execution regarding Lot 880. Costs were imposed on petitioner Santos.