Case Digest (G.R. No. 120784-85)
Facts:
Spouses Warlito Bustos and Herminia Reyes-Bustos v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray, G.R. Nos. 120784-85, January 24, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Warlito Bustos and Herminia Reyes-Bustos (buyers from Moses G. Mendoza) sought relief from the Supreme Court to set aside portions of the Court of Appeals' consolidated rulings that grew out of competing claims of ownership and possession over a parcel in Masantol, Pampanga. Respondents include the Court of Appeals (whose decisions are assailed) and Spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray (buyers of a share traced to Trinidad Fajardo).
The property dispute traces to the intestate death of Paulino Fajardo (1957). His heirs executed an extrajudicial partition on September 30, 1964; on that date Manuela Fajardo sold her one-fourth share to Moses G. Mendoza by deed of absolute sale. The land later appeared in the Masantol cadastre as Lots 280, 283, 284, 1000‑A and 1000‑B; Manuela’s share included Lot 284, later subdivided into Lots 284‑A and 284‑B. Trinidad Fajardo occupied the land and refused to surrender it to Mendoza.
Mendoza filed a partition action with the Court of First Instance, Pampanga (later RTC Civil Case No. 83‑0005‑M) on September 3, 1971. During the pendency of that proceeding Trinidad died; her heirs made an extrajudicial partition (December 15, 1984) and Trinidad’s son Lucio Fajardo Ignacio later sold Lot 284‑B to the Virays (February 16, 1987). The RTC, by decision dated February 8, 1989, ruled in favor of Mendoza, ordering the segregation and adjudication of a one‑fourth portion to the plaintiffs (Mendoza). Moses Mendoza sold the property to petitioners Bustos on September 13, 1991.
Separately, on November 6, 1989 the Virays sued the Bustoses in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for unlawful detainer (Case No. 89(12)); the MCTC ruled for the Virays and issued writs of execution and demolition. The writs were stayed when the Bustoses sought relief from the RTC by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction. The RTC dismissed that petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction on December 18, 1992, ordering petitioners and their insurer to pay litigation expenses; the Bustoses appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA‑G.R. SP No. 30369). Lucio Ignacio likewise appealed (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 37606). The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and, on August 26, 1994, rendered a consolidated judgment: it affirmed ownership in favor of Mendoza (affirming the RTC but modifying the partition orders to require a relocation survey and fixed‑portion segregation) and affirmed the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case only insofar as possession was concerned; it dismissed one appeal (CA‑G.R. CV No. 37607) and denied costs. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 21, 1995.
Petitioners fil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court allow execution of a final and executory unlawful detainer judgment (resulting in ejectment) when, by later adjudication in a separate action, the persons facing eviction have been declared the lawful owners of the property?
- If execution should be suspended, is the Court of Appeals’ decision on the possession‑related appeal properly set aside as moot and academic while its de...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)