Case Digest (G.R. No. 97477)
Facts:
RTC Judge Camilo E. Tamin, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur and the Municipality of Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur, represented by Mayor Domiciano E. Real, Petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Vicente Medina and Fortunata Rosellon, Respondents, G.R. No. 97477, promulgated May 08, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The Municipality of Dumingag, through its mayor, filed on September 24, 1990 a complaint denominated “Ejectment with Preliminary Injunction and Damages” in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Molave, against Vicente Medina and Fortunata Rosellon. The municipality alleged ownership of a 5,894 sq. m. lot reserved for public plaza under Presidential Proclamation No. 365 (March 15, 1968); that a portion had been leased to respondents in 1958 subject to vacation if needed for public purposes; that respondents later ceased paying rent, refused to vacate, and had filed a cadastral answer; and that construction of a municipal gymnasium financed by national appropriations was imperiled.
The RTC judge set a preliminary hearing for October 10, 1990. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of jurisdiction (characterizing the action as illegal detainer within municipal court jurisdiction) and pointing to pending cadastral proceedings (Cadastral Case No. N-10) over the same land. On October 10, 1990, the trial judge denied the motion to dismiss and, upon the municipality’s motion, issued a writ of possession with an ancillary writ of demolition to place the municipality in possession and to avoid jeopardizing the public construction. The judge relied on the complaint’s allegations (treating the action as in rem/reivindicatory in nature) and analogized to the eminent-domain procedure (Rule 67, Revised Rules of Court) to justify immediate possession.
Respondents filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration that was denied (order dated October 19, 1990). The municipality executed the writ on October 19, 1990, resulting in respondents’ dispossession and demolition of structures. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which on November 14, 1990 gave due course and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining further enforcement of the orders. On January 21, 1991 the Court of Appeals rendered a decision declaring the October 10 and October 19, 1990 orders of the RTC null and void; a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 20, 1991. The Court of Appeals held the RTC had jurisdiction over an action whose allegations sought recovery of possession of land purportedly reserved for public use, but ruled that the trial court lacked authority to issue the writs of possession and demolition under the circumstances and that the trial court should have held the ejectment proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of the cadastral proceedings. The Court of Appeals required the municipality to post a bond to answer for just compe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain the Municipality’s ejectment action?
- Was the issuance and enforcement of the writ of possession and ancillary writ of demolition by the trial court valid prior to resolution of the pending cadastral proceedings?
- If the writs were void or premature, what remedies or relief (bond, com...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)