Case Digest (G.R. No. 157985)
Facts:
In Civil Case No. 11799, private respondents Cecilia B. Palisoc and Marina B. Mata sued the occupants now styled as Petitioners for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paranaque City, Branch 77, which on February 27, 2002 declared respondents the rightful possessors and ordered Petitioners to vacate and pay rentals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 274, affirmed on January 8, 2003; Petitioners failed to perfect an appeal with supersedeas bond or deposits, a writ of execution issued and was served March 7, 2003, the MeTC granted a Motion for Issuance of Special Order of Demolition on April 30, 2003 and issued the Special Order on May 9, 2003, and the sheriff turned over possession on May 19, 2003.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals and later a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending noncompliance with Republic Act No. 7279, particularly Section 28, and challenging the MeTC orders as unlawful.
Issues:
- Were the MeTC orders dated April 30, 2003 and May 9, 2003 proper and enforceable?
- Did Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279 apply and was its eviction/demolition procedure complied with?
- Did Petitioners' filing of certiorari prevent the RTC judgment from becoming final and executory?
Ruling:
The petition for review was DENIED for mootness and lack of merit. The Court held that the MeTC orders were proper and enforceable to carry out the RTC judgment and that execution proceeded lawfully. The Court found Section 28 inapplicable because Petitioners did not show they were “underprivileged and homeless” beneficiaries as defined in Section 3(t) of Republic Act No. 7279, and Petitioners’ certiorari did not stay execution.
Ratio:
Under Section 19, Rule 70, and related authorities, a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action is immediately executory and may be stayed only by perfecting an appeal with a sufficient supersedeas bond and required deposits; under Section 21, Rule 70 the RTC’s decision on appeal was immediately executory. Petitioners failed to timely seek review by appeal to the Court of Appeals and instead filed certiorari, which cannot substitute for an appeal where an appeal was available; therefore the RTC decision became final and execution was proper. The record showed required notice and hearing, no writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals, and no proof that the statutory safeguards of Section 28 applied to Petitioners.
Doctrine:
- Under Section 19, Rule 70, judgments in forcible entry and detainer cases are immediately executory and may be stayed only by perfecting an appeal with a supersedeas bond and required deposits.
- Under Section 21, Rule 70, a Regional Trial Court decision on appeal is immediately executory without prejudice to further appeal.
- A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal when an appeal is available.
- The protections of Section 28, Republic Act No. 7279 apply only to persons who qualify as *underprivileged and homeless citizens* under Section 3(t).
- Where demolition pursuant to a lawful court order has been executed and possession turned over, the controversy may become moot and academic.