G.R. No. L-4940 April 22, 1953
MADRIGAL & CO., petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, CONCEPCION L. PLANAS, and ILUMINADO PLANAS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Madrigal & Co., Inc. owned a parcel of land in Pasay City, part of which was occupied by respondents Concepcion Planas and Iluminado Planas since April 1, 1948. On February 16, 1949, petitioner filed an action for forcible entry and detainer in the Municipal Court of Pasay City. On June 5, 1946, the Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering respondents to vacate the land, surrender possession to petitioner, and pay P595 monthly from April 1, 1948, until vacating. Respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. 954. On October 18, 1949, while the appeal was pending, petitioner moved for immediate execution of the Municipal Court’s judgment, alleging respondents failed to pay or deposit the compensation for September 1949. The CFI granted the motion on October 22, 1949, and a writ of execution was issued on October 27, 1949. The sheriff’s return on November 26, 1949, stated respondents failed to vacate or pay rents. On December 12, 1949, petitioner moved for a special demolition order. The CFI, on December 19, 1949, granted respondents six months to remove their buildings, warning of demolition if they failed. Meanwhile, the CFI tried the case on the merits and rendered judgment on March 23, 1950, ordering respondents to vacate, pay P411.70 monthly from April 1, 1948, until vacating, and pay costs. Respondents appealed this CFI decision to the Court of Appeals. On April 15, 1950, respondents moved to suspend the writ of execution, which the CFI granted. On June 12, 1950, respondents moved to suspend or set aside the execution and demolition orders, citing their appeal to the Court of Appeals. The CFI, on June 17, 1949 (presumably 1950), suspended the demolition order and extended the time for removal until September 30, 1950. Respondents failed to remove their improvements by this date. On October 3, 1950, petitioner filed an urgent motion for a special demolition order under Rule 39, Section 13. The CFI, then presided by Judge Manuel M. Mejia, denied this motion on October 9, 1950. Petitioner then sought mandamus from the Court of Appeals to compel the issuance of the demolition order, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, after rendering its own decision on the merits in an ejectment case on appeal, and after the defendants appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, could still issue a special demolition order to execute the earlier decision of the Municipal Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the mandamus action. The Municipal Court’s decision had become functus officio upon the rendition of the CFI’s decision on March 23, 1950. The doctrine of functus officio applies to ejectment cases, as established in De la Fuente vs. Jugo. The writ of execution issued prior to the CFI’s decision was no longer relevant as it had not been carried out. The urgent motion for demolition filed on October 3, 1950, was properly refused because: (1) the inferior court’s decision was functus officio after the CFI’s decision, and (2) the respondents had already appealed the case to a higher court (the Court of Appeals). The fact that respondents previously sought extensions from the CFI, implying a belief that execution could still proceed, was an error of law that did not bind the courts or create estoppel against petitioner. Costs were awarded against petitioner.