Case Digest (G.R. No. 223335)
Facts:
Terocel Realty, Inc. (now Pechaten Corporation) v. Leonardo Mempin, G.R. No. 223335, March 04, 2020, First Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Terocel obtained a favorable Decision in Civil Case No. 166014 (unlawful detainer) from the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 28, Manila dated April 26, 2000; the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Manila affirmed that decision on August 10, 2001, rendering the judgment final and executory. Petitioner first moved for execution on September 13, 2001; respondent Mempin opposed, asserting he was a prospective beneficiary of a City of Manila expropriation/land grant program affecting the subject lot.RTC‑Branch 12 issued a writ of execution on January 8, 2003 and denied respondent’s motion to defer execution, while the sheriff’s report of July 1, 2003 indicated respondent refused to vacate. The City of Manila filed an expropriation complaint (SP No. 03‑108565, raffled to RTC‑Branch 47) in December 2003; that complaint was dismissed by RTC‑Branch 47, the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and this Court likewise affirmed in City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, 689 Phil. 31 (2012), with finality entered August 6, 2012.
After the expropriation litigation concluded, petitioner filed a second motion for execution with MeTC‑Branch 28 on February 15, 2013, which the MeTC denied as filed beyond the five‑year period for execution by motion under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; the MeTC held the expropriation case was not a supervening event that tolled prescription and noted respondent was not a party to the expropriation case. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the MeTC was denied on July 30, 2013.
Petitioner sought relief by filing a petition for mandamus with the RTC‑Manila (SCA No. 13‑131042), which was raffled to RTC‑Branch 54; the RTC ruled mandamus did not lie to direct a lower court how to resolve a motion for execution. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 137368 issued a Decision dated July 23, 2015 affirming dismissal of petitioner’s mandamus petition and later denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 8, 2016. Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, reiterating that ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the complaint for expropriation constitute a supervening event that interrupted the five‑year period to execute the unlawful detainer judgment by motion?
- Does mandamus lie to compel execution of judgment by motion beyond the fi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)