Case Digest (G.R. No. 126462)
Facts:
Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Former Ninth Division), G.R. No. 126462, November 12, 2002, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 sought to annul the Court of Appeals’ Resolution of June 27, 1995 (and its reiteration June 19, 1996, and denial of reconsideration August 26, 1996) that answered a letter from the trial court and directed enforcement of certain final orders in Civil Case No. 359‑A.On January 24, 1984, Natalia Realty, Inc. (petitioner) filed an accion publiciana in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Antipolo, for recovery of possession of two lots covered by TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528; a TRO issued January 30, 1984. Private respondents Antonio Martinez, Felipe Padua, Mario Perfecto and Hermito Salodega answered claiming prior possession. After petitioner’s failure to prosecute, Judge Senecio Ortille dismissed the complaint on August 26, 1991; subsequently Judge Sinforoso Nano issued an April 20, 1992 order directing petitioner to surrender possession of portions of the property to the private respondents. Petitioner’s motion to set aside was denied March 26, 1993.
Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals via CA‑G.R. SP No. 30787 (filed April 23, 1993); the Special Fifth Division dismissed it June 18, 1993 for untimeliness and finality of the RTC orders (entry of judgment registered later). Thereafter, on December 27, 1993, Felipe Navarro (claiming to represent private respondents and later determined to be disbarred) sought a writ of execution in the RTC; the trial court denied execution March 7, 1994. Navarro appealed to the Ninth Division as CA‑G.R. CV No. 44915, but the Ninth Division dismissed the appeal February 6, 1995 because Navarro was disbarred and unauthorized.
Private respondents moved for execution March 15, 1995. Instead of issuing execution, Judge Francisco Querubin (then presiding) wrote a letter (April 17, 1995) to the Ninth Division asking which final orders he should enforce; the Ninth Division answered in a June 27, 1995 Resolution directing enforcement of the August 26, 1991 dismissal, the April 20, 1992 restoration order, and the Fifth Division’s June 18, 1993 Resolution. Petitioner moved to set aside that Resolution (July 10, 1995). On August 3, 1995 Judge Querubin issued two orders: (1) granting execution pursuant to the CA Resolution and (2) denying Navarro’s motions. Querubin later inhibited (Aug. 21, 1995); case was re‑raffled to Judge Felix Caballes (Branch 71), who on November 6, 1995 granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration citing Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian Reform as a purported supervening event.
Private respondents sought relief from the Court of Appeals (Dec. 6, 1995). The Ninth Division reiterated its June 27, 1995 Resolution on June 19, 1996 and required Judge Caballes to explain why he should not be ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act in excess of jurisdiction in entertaining Judge Querubin’s letter asking which final orders to enforce?
- Did the Court of Appeals exceed its jurisdiction in ordering Judge Querubin to enforce the trial court orders dated August 26, 1991 and April 20, 1992 and the Fifth Division’s decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 30787?
- Did the Court of Appeals act without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the June 19, 1996 Resolution reiterating its June 27, 1995 Resolution and effectively nullifying Judge Caballes’ November 6, 1995 order when the proper remedy would be appeal or certiorari?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in merely noting petitioner’s July 10, 1995 motion instead of setting aside its June 27, 1995 Resolution, thereby violating petitioner’s right to due process?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion or act without jurisdiction in ordering Judge Caba...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)