Facts:

The case at hand involves Biblia T. Banaga as the petitioner and Hon. Jose S. Majaducon, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, and Candelario S. Damalerio as the respondents. The dispute originated from a series of legal actions regarding the redemption of a parcel of land located in General Santos City. Initially, in a suit filed by Banaga, her complaint to redeem the property was dismissed by the RTC, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which later reversed the RTC decision and upheld Banaga’s right to redeem the property. Subsequent to the Court of Appeals' decision, Damalerio appealed to the Supreme Court, but his appeal was denied, and the decision became final. Banaga, however, failed to redeem the property within the 30-day period required by law. Damalerio subsequently moved to declare the termination of this redemption period, although this motion was denied by the RTC. This led Damalerio to file a petition for certio

...

Facts:

Procedural Background

• Biblia T. Banaga (petitioner) initiated an action for redemption of a parcel of land located in General Santos City against private respondent Candelario S. Damalerio in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23.
• The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint; subsequently, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals which reversed the RTC’s decision and upheld her right to redeem the property.
• Private respondent previously appealed the trial court decision via a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 103204), which was denied by the Supreme Court.
• Petitioner failed to exercise her right to redeem within the prescribed 30-day period, prompting private respondent to move for a declaration that the redemption period had terminated.
• The RTC denied private respondent’s motion on May 29, 1992, leading him to file a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of that order.

Execution Proceedings and Subsequent Orders

• The Court of Appeals, in a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 127941, directed:
• The Register of Deeds to issue a certificate of title in favor of private respondent.
• The RTC to issue a writ of execution and a writ of possession.
• On May 10, 1999, upon motion by private respondent, the RTC issued both the writ of execution and the writ of possession, thereby placing private respondent in possession of the subject property.
• Private respondent fenced Lot 2-G-2 and later initiated a motion for the issuance of a special demolition order for a structure allegedly erected within this lot.
• Petitioner objected to the demolition claim, contending that the structure is actually on Lot 2-G-1, an adjacent lot still owned by her.
• To resolve the boundary dispute, the trial court ordered a joint survey by both parties’ surveyors:
• Conflicting survey reports prompted both parties to agree on a relocation survey conducted by the DENR.
• Engr. Gerardo Dida of the DENR carried out the relocation survey on January 13 and 14, 2000.
• His survey report indicated that Lot 2-G-1 encroached upon Lot 2-G-2 by approximately 136 square meters.

Controversies Over the Survey Report and Appellate Relief

• On March 13, 2000, petitioner filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion requesting a verification survey on the ground that Engr. Dida’s survey was incomplete.
• Without ruling on the motion, the trial court proceeded to take Dida’s testimony ex parte on March 30, 2000, and ordered the submission of memoranda by both parties.
• The trial court subsequently issued orders:
• First assailed order approving Dida’s report on August 4, 2000.
• A second order on October 2, 2000, which, along with a third assailed order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on February 9, 2001, effectively dismissed petitioner’s notice of appeal.
• Petitioner then instituted a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, seeking:
• Nullification of the trial court’s orders approving the survey report.
• A writ of preliminary injunction to forestall execution and demolition activities.
• The Court of Appeals, on July 4, 2001, dismissed petitioner’s petition on the ground that:
• There was no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s approval of the survey report.
• The order approving the survey report was an incidental part of the execution proceedings and thus not appealable.
• Petitioner was bound by her earlier manifestation to abide by the survey findings.
• Not satisfied with this ruling, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, alleging several errors including:
• Improper denial of her notice of appeal.
• Erroneous holding that petitioner had acquiesced to the execution of the contested order.
• Estoppel precluding her from assailing the trial court’s decisions.

Underlying Dispute in the Execution of the Final Judgment

• The factual controversy centers on the boundary adjustments resulting from the DENR survey:
• Petitioner argues that the survey report alters the boundaries of both Lot 2-G-1 and Lot 2-G-2.
• It is contended that these adjustments may result in be awarding or re-allocating portions of land, thereby improperly affecting petitioner’s property rights.
• Additional allegations include discrepancies or alterations in the lot data computations compared to DENR records, as well as an assertion of potential fraud in the survey process.
• The petitioning party contends that the trial court’s failure to properly address these issues amounts to grave abuse of discretion, warranting appellate review.

Issue:

Appropriateness of the Remedy

• Whether the trial court correctly denied petitioner’s notice of appeal regarding its order approving the survey report, particularly given that the order allegedly varied the terms of the final judgment in G.R. No. 127941.
• Whether an ordinary appeal is a proper remedy to challenge an order of execution that involves factual determinations, or if a special civil action for certiorari is the sole available remedy under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Factual and Technical Discrepancies in the Survey Report

• Whether the survey report prepared by Engr. Dida accurately reflected the boundaries of Lot 2-G-2 and Lot 2-G-1.
• Whether the alleged discrepancy or alteration in lot data computations, and the potential fraud in the survey records, should render the trial court’s approval of the survey report subject to review on appeal.

Manifestation and Waiver Issues

• Whether petitioner’s prior manifestation to abide by the survey findings precluded her from later challenging the survey report.
• Whether such a waiver extends to allegations of fraud concerning future irregularities in the execution process.

Compliance with Procedural Requirements

• Whether the alleged violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, regarding the method of service of the petition, is sufficient grounds to dismiss the case.
• Whether the proximity between the counsel’s offices and the explanation provided by petitioner’s counsel raises issues significant enough to warrant dismissal on technical grounds.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)