Case Digest (G.R. No. 146754)
Facts:
This is Spouses Jesse Cachopero and Bema Cachopero v. Rachel Celestial, G.R. No. 146754, March 21, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Rachel Celestial (respondent) owned an old residential house partly standing on Lot No. 2586‑G‑28; her younger brother Jesse Cachopero and co‑petitioner Bema Cachopero had been occupying the house since 1973. On July 21, 1989 Celestial filed an ejectment action (Civil Case No. 711) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Midsayap. On August 10, 1989 the parties executed a written Compromise Agreement under which the spouses agreed to vacate Celestial’s lot and transfer the old house to the back of Lot No. 2586‑G‑28 within eight months, with specified allocations of demolition/transfer costs; the MTC approved the compromise and rendered judgment thereon the same day.A Sheriff’s Return dated July 17, 1990 stated the defendants were found outside the plaintiff’s real property and that improvements introduced by the defendants were already outside Celestial’s lot; Celestial nonetheless moved for an alias writ and for contempt proceedings, asserting parts of the house remained. The Deputy Provincial Sheriff filed a comment that defendants had complied. The MTC denied the motion for an alias writ on August 30, 1990 and denied reconsideration on November 20, 1990, holding it could not decide matters not put in issue.
Celestial filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 (Special Civil Case No. 051), asking the RTC to order the MTC to issue an alias writ and to direct the Sheriff to enforce it. The RTC initially dismissed the mandamus petition on March 20, 1997, but later granted reconsideration and set aside that dismissal on September 1, 1997; an ocular inspection was conducted July 27, 1992. Meanwhile Jesse filed Special Civil Case No. 070 (challenging DENR’s denial of his Miscellaneous Sales Application, MSA) which later reached the Court of Appeals as CA‑G.R. No. 45927 and ultimately the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 142595.
On February 3, 1999 the RTC again denied Celestial’s mandamus petition, this time on the ground that issuance of an alias writ depended on the outcome of Special Civil Case No. 070. Celestial appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 52655). On September 4, 2000 the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC resolution and directed the RTC judge to issue an alias writ ordering full and complete implementation of the judicially‑approved compromise judgment; the CA reiterated this in a January 19, 2001 Resolution. The spouses petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45 to set aside the CA decision. While the Rule 45 petition was pending, Celestial sought a status quo order (May 30, 2002). The Court of Ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Will a writ of mandamus lie to compel the Regional Trial Court to issue an alias writ of execution to implement a judicially approved compromise agreement when the Sheriff and the MTC had ruled the compromise was executed?
- Will a writ of mandamus lie to compel the RTC to eject the petitioners from the land they occupy and applied for under an MSA after partial demolition of the contested house pursuant to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)