Case Digest (G.R. No. 124779)
Facts:
Danilo Antonio, et al. v. Hon. Isagani A. Geronimo, G.R. No. 124779, November 29, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Alexander Catolos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Antipolo (Civil Case No. 2223), alleging he was the registered owner of four parcels of land in Mayamot, Antipolo, Rizal (covered by TCT Nos. 243003, 243179, 226192, and 166965) and that the petitioners (the numerous occupants here) were unlawfully occupying those properties. Catolos claimed he allowed occupancy without rent on condition of immediate vacation if he needed the premises; when he so demanded the occupants refused to vacate.
The MTC, presided by Judge Isagani A. Geronimo, rendered judgment for Catolos in a Decision dated 15 September 1993 ordering the occupants to vacate and to pay P200 as reasonable compensation for use and occupation, and P20,000 for litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. Catolos moved for issuance of a writ of demolition on 23 November 1993; the lower court granted the motion and issued a writ of demolition on 28 March 1994. Partial demolition occurred by April 1994, and an ex parte motion for full implementation was granted on 24 April 1995 with police assistance ordered to effectuate the writ.
Meanwhile the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo adopted Resolution No. 61-95 on 20 June 1995 authorizing the Mayor to acquire the subject properties “thru expropriation or purchase” for public/socialized housing, later amended by Resolution No. 88-95 (30 August 1995) to permit securing financing; Resolution No. 119-95 (18 October 1995) informed the court that funds had been included in the 1996 budget and requested that demolition be held in abeyance. Despite these resolutions, demolition proceeded. Petitioners moved to stay execution on 28 November 1995 (and supplemented on 1 March 1996), invoking Commonwealth Act No. 538 as creating an automatic suspension when government seeks to acquire land, but the MTC denied the motion in an Order dated 29 March 1996, reasoning that no expropriation action had been filed and petitioners had not paid current rents.
When Catolos later sought re-issuance of the writ, a motion for re-issuance filed 22 February 2001 was granted by Order dated 26 January 2004 and an Alias Writ of Demolition issued on 20 May 2004 by the succeeding MTC judge, Ma. Consejo Gengos-Ignalaga. Peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Municipal Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petitioners’ motion to stay execution of the ejectment/demolition order?
- Can a mere resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan (or the written notice of intent) operate to suspend execution of an ejectment/demolition order—i.e., d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)