Case Digest (G.R. No. 53851)
Facts:
Chua Huat, Ong Choan, Dominador Felino, Rufino Clemente, Teodora Clemente, and Lourdes Mempin v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Judge Elviro Peralta, Sheriff of Manila, and The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, and Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. (G.R. No. 53851) and Chua Huat, Lourdes Mempin, Rufino Clemente, Dominador Felino, Maria Gamboa, and Ong Choan v. Hon. Ramon D. Bagatsing, City Mayor of Manila; Romulo M. Del Rosario, City Engineer and Building Official, City of Manila; and Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. (G.R. No. 63863), decided July 9, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The litigation traces to Civil Case No. 74634 decided by the Court of First Instance, Branch XVII, on May 31, 1972, against several defendants (the petitioners here), ordering them to pay monthly sums, vacate the property, and remove or abandon improvements. The CFI judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on January 19, 1977 (C.A.-G.R. No. 51337-R). Petitioners (except Ong Choan) sought review in this Court (G.R. No. L-47603 and Ong Choan in G.R. No. L-48649), both of which were denied, rendering the judgment final.
After finality, plaintiffs moved to execute the May 31, 1972 judgment; the trial court granted execution on November 20, 1978. To delay execution, petitioner Chua Huat filed an action to annul the judgment (Civil Case No. 119751; co-petitioners filed Civil Case No. 119884), asserting lack of jurisdiction because the original action was allegedly unlawful detainer. Despite these filings, the trial court ordered execution on February 23, 1979, and denied a motion to suspend execution on April 5, 1979. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. No. 09251 SP) to stop execution; the court denied relief on February 29, 1980, and denied motions for reconsideration (April 30 and July 8, 1980). Petitioners brought the matter to this Court via petition for review on certiorari (filed August 7, 1980).
Separately, after execution issues, Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. requested condemnation of dilapidated structures occupied by petitioners on September 14, 1982. The City Engineer issued notices of condemnation on November 17, 1982, based on inspection reports finding structural deterioration. Petitioners obtained an independent inspection (report dated January 21, 1983) claiming the buildings were structurally sound, and they formally protested the condemnation on February 22, 1983. On May 2, 1983 petitioners filed a petition for prohibition (with prayer for preliminary injunction) against the Mayor, the City Engineer, and Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc., challenging notices of condemnation and demolition orders; a Temporary Restraining Order was issued May 9, 1983 enjoining demolition of one building. The Mayor confirmed the condemnation on July 6, 1983 and demolition orders followed in September 1983.
The cases were consolidated by this Court (resolution January 9, 1984). The Court of Appeals' denial in C.A.-G.R. No. 09251 SP was made the subject of G.R. No. 53851 (a petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying certiorary relief to suspend execution of the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 74634 when petitioners had filed Civil Case No. 119751 to annul that judgment?
- Was certiorari/prohibition under Rule 65 proper to enjoin the City Engineer and Mayor from condemning and demolishing petitioners' buildings, i.e., did respondents act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and had petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)