G.R. No. 177244 - Largo vs. Court of Appeals

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, issued an alias writ of execution dated February 20, 2004, granting petitioner Antonio Martinez possession of parts of two parcels of land (previously TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528, later consolidated under TCT No. N-67845).
On March 30, 2004, Deputy Sheriff Rolando Palmares executed a Certificate of Delivery of Possession, attesting that possession of the 86.26-hectare portion of the subject lots had been delivered to the petitioner and his co-parties in Civil Case No. 359-A.
On July 27, 2004, the RTC issued an Order directing its Sheriff-in-Charge to ensure that private respondent Natalia Realty Inc. and any occupants remain ousted, in compliance with the ruling in Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA and the earlier alias writ.

On October 17, 2006, petitioner filed a motion before the RTC requesting the issuance of another alias writ of execution, contending that private respondent Natalia Realty Inc. refused to comply with the February 20, 2004 Alias Writ.
The RTC, through an Omnibus Order dated September 10, 2007, denied the motion on the ground that the earlier alias writ had been duly served, fully implemented, and therefore no further issuance was necessary.
Following this denial, petitioner moved for reconsideration, anticipating either a delay or denial.

Believing that the RTC might either continue to deny or delay his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus before the Court to compel the RTC to issue another alias writ of execution against private respondent and to have it immediately executed.
The petition was remanded to the Court of Appeals (CA) and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 105092.
In a Decision dated April 30, 2012, and a subsequent Resolution dated July 25, 2012, the CA denied the petition for mandamus for lack of merit.

Whether the petition for mandamus was properly dismissed by the Court of Appeals on the ground of lack of merit.

Whether petitioner could have invoked mandamus without exhausting his existing remedy through a pending motion for reconsideration.
Whether the issuance of another alias writ of execution was justified given that the subject lots had already been delivered under the February 20, 2004 Alias Writ.