Case Digest (G.R. No. 132810)
Facts:
Esperanza Sales Bermudez v. Helen S. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 132810, December 11, 2000, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.
In 1968, Severo Sales and his daughter Esperanza Sales Bermudez filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI), Tarlac (docketed Civil Case No. 4469), a complaint for annulment of deed against Leonilo Gonzales, alleging that a purported Deed of Sale over an unregistered parcel in Bugallon, Pangasinan, had been fraudulently executed and that, in truth, any transaction was a mortgage. The plaintiffs also alleged that Severo had earlier donated a portion to Esperanza and had leased the remainder to the late Ernesto Gonzales.
The CFI (Judge Jose C. De Guzman) rendered judgment for Leonilo on October 27, 1969, declaring him the lawful owner and dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed on December 19, 1974 (modifying attorney’s fees). Leonilo died on October 27, 1972; his heirs (respondents) later succeeded to his interest. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the lower courts’ decisions on July 29, 1992 (docketed G.R. No. L‑40145), and the decision became final and executory on October 28, 1992.
On August 11, 1993, Leonilo’s heirs — Helen Santos Gonzales, Edgardo Gonzales, Marina Gonzales, and Romano Gonzales — filed a Notice of Substitution of Parties in the execution proceedings. The regional trial court (RTC), Branch 65, Tarlac (Judge Angel J. Parazo), issued a writ of execution (October 21, 1994) and an alias writ (June 20, 1995); sheriffs placed respondents in possession on August 3, 1995. Respondents then filed a Petition for Demolition (November 2, 1995), alleging the occupants had been given 30 days to remove the house but failed to do so.
The RTC issued an order on June 21, 1996: “let a writ of demolition be issued in favor of defendants, immediately.” A motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied on January 24, 1997. Esperanza sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO (filed February 27, 1997). The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on December 12, 1997 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 43517) and denied reconsideration on February 27, 1998. Petitioner then filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (petition filed Mar...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s petition for certiorari under Rule 45?
- Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of demolition without a hearing to determine when the house was built and whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as a builder in good faith under Arti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)