G.R. No. L-63614 August 28, 1984
SPOUSES DANILO GONZALEZ, JR., AND VERONICA R. GONZALEZ, and EDGARDO LORIA, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and FRANCIS X. LAZATIN, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, spouses Gonzalez, secured a final and executory judgment in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 39579) against Petronila Lazatin, the mother of private respondent Francis Lazatin. A writ of execution was issued. Meanwhile, Francis Lazatin filed a separate action for annulment of sale and/or reformation of instrument (Civil Case No. 33944) over the same property and obtained a restraining order from the Court of First Instance. He also petitioned the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 59325) to intervene in the ejectment case, which petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court lifted its own temporary restraining order and preliminary mandatory order, leading deputy sheriff Edgardo Loria to restore possession to the Gonzalez spouses.
Subsequently, in the annulment case (Civil Case No. 33944), respondent Judge Eduardo Tutaan issued orders on August 18 and 23, 1982, directing the sheriff to restore possession to Lazatin and to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for allegedly violating the trial court’s earlier restraining order. The petitioners challenged these orders via certiorari in the Intermediate Appellate Court, which dismissed their petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of August 18 and 23, 1982, which effectively restored possession to Lazatin despite a final ejectment judgment in favor of the Gonzalez spouses.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the appellate court’s decision and the challenged orders. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of the judgment in the ejectment case and the proper scope of injunctive relief in a separate action affecting possession. The Court ruled that the execution of the final ejectment judgment was ministerial and lawful. The sheriff’s act of restoring possession to the Gonzalez spouses was pursuant to a valid writ and the Supreme Court’s own resolution in G.R. No. 59325, which had lifted all injunctive restraints.
The respondent judge’s orders, which sought to re-enjoin possession based on the pending annulment case, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The general rule is that a court trying an issue of ownership cannot issue an injunction against the execution of a final judgment in an ejectment case, as possession is the sole issue in the latter. While equity may permit exceptions, as in Vda. de Legaspi v. Avendaño, no such compelling equitable grounds existed here. The Court had already prima facie found that Lazatin was not a resident or occupant of the property, and there was no extreme factor like impending demolition. Therefore, the equitable considerations favored upholding the final ejectment judgment, and the orders restoring possession to Lazatin were invalid.