G.R. No. 117897 - Islamic Directorate of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. (RCBM), a corporation sole, is the registered owner of a 118-hectare fishpond in Barrio Masukol, Paombong, Bulacan, covered by OCT No. 589.
The fishpond was leased to L.K. Trading, Inc. for three years, starting on 12 October 1987, and was renewed for another three years on 10 September 1990, ending on 11 October 1993.

On 26 July 1990, the Cofradia Nuestra Senora Dela Correa informed Bishop Cirilo Almario of its intention to take over the management and administration of the fishpond after the lease expired on 11 October 1990.
Despite this, Bishop Almario renewed the lease with L.K. Trading, Inc., prompting the Cofradia and the People of Paombong to file a complaint for nullity of title, sum of money, accounting, and damages against RCBM and Bishop Almario.

On 9 October 1990, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing RCBM and Bishop Almario from executing a new lease or exercising acts of ownership over the fishpond.
On 11 October 1990, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction after petitioners posted a bond, which was later increased to P200,000.
On 29 November 1990, the trial court ordered RCBM and Bishop Almario to desist from disturbing petitioners' management of the fishpond but prohibited petitioners from harvesting fish without court approval.
On the same day, petitioners forcibly took over the fishpond with the help of the deputy sheriff and Philippine Constabulary personnel.

L.K. Trading, Inc. and Bishop Almario filed motions for reconsideration, which were unresolved, prompting L.K. Trading to file a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals.
On 19 December 1990, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO, and on 11 April 1991, it set aside the trial court's orders, remanding the case for re-raffle and trial on the merits.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, and the decision became final and executory on 30 August 1991.

During execution, Rodrigo Bagtas, claiming to be a lessee of petitioners, intervened and was allowed to retain possession of the fishpond until he harvested the fish.
L.K. Trading, Inc. challenged the trial court's orders, leading to the Supreme Court issuing a TRO and ultimately setting aside the trial court's inconsistent orders.

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated 11 October 1990 and 29 November 1990, which dispossessed L.K. Trading, Inc. of the fishpond.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing Rodrigo Bagtas to intervene and retain possession of the fishpond during the execution stage.
Whether the trial court's orders during execution were consistent with the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.