Case Summary (G.R. No. 149051)
Procedural History
- RTC dismissed petitioner’s redemption complaint; CA reversed and recognized her right to redeem.
- SC denied private respondent’s petition for review (G.R. No. 103204, Feb. 19, 1992); redemption period lapsed.
- Private respondent’s certiorari petition nullifying the denial to declare termination of redemption period succeeded in CA; SC denied petitioner’s appeal (G.R. No. 113534, May 11, 1994).
- Writ of execution issued; Register of Deeds originally refused to reissue title to private respondent.
- CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 40348, Nov. 7, 1996), later affirmed by SC (Toledo-Banaga v. CA, 361 Phil. 1006 [1999]), ordered issuance of new title to private respondent and writs of execution and possession.
- RTC executed the decision on May 10, 1999: issued writs of execution and possession, and certificate of title to Damalerio. Private respondent took possession and erected fence.
Boundary Dispute and Trial Court Orders
• Petitioner alleged that private respondent’s demolition motion targeted a structure on her adjacent Lot 2-G-1, not his Lot 2-G-2.
• RTC directed a joint survey; conflicting results prompted a DENR relocation survey.
• DENR’s Engr. Gerardo Dida reported a 136 sqm encroachment of Lot 2-G-1 onto Lot 2-G-2.
• Petitioner filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion for verification survey, alleging incompleteness; RTC took Engr. Dida’s testimony ex parte without ruling on her motion.
• RTC issued three orders: approval of Dida’s report (Aug. 4, 2000), denial of petitioner’s notice of appeal (Oct. 2, 2000), and denial of reconsideration (Feb. 9, 2001).
Court of Appeals’ Decision
• Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, seeking nullification of the three RTC orders and approval of her notice of appeal.
• CA issued a TRO (Mar. 13, 2001) but on July 4, 2001 dismissed her petition:
– Held no grave abuse of discretion in approving the survey report.
– Ruled boundary resolution incidental to execution; Section 1(f), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court prohibits appeals from orders of execution.
– Declared petitioner bound by her agreement to abide by the DENR findings.
– Observed that she should have sought reconsideration instead of notice of appeal.
Issues Presented
• Whether the RTC erred in denying petitioner’s notice of appeal despite her contention that its Aug. 4, 2000 order varied the terms of the final judgment (G.R. No. 127941).
• Whether an ordinary appeal lies from an order approving a survey report incidental to execution.
• Whether petitioner waived her right to challenge the survey by manifesting compliance with the DENR findings.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution (protection of property rights; due process)
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(1)(f) (no appeal from order of execution)
• Exceptional circumstances permitting appeal from execution orders (Limpin v. IAC, G.R. No. L-70987, Jan. 30, 1987):
- Writ of execution varies the judgment;
- Change in parties’ situations makes execution unjust;
- Property exempt from execution;
- Matter never subject to judgment;
- Judgment terms unclear;
- Writ improvidently issued or defective.
Analysis
• The determination of boundary lines and survey accuracy involves factual questions requiring appellate review.
• The exceptional circumstances doctrine permits ordinary appeal where execution proceedings vary the judgment or raise factual issues.
• Special civil action for certiorari is inappropriate for factual review; it addresses jurisdictional or grave abuse of discretion only.
• Petitioner’s challenge to the survey report—its scope, methodology, and potential fraud in technical descriptions—warrants an ordinary appeal for a complete factual examination.
• Requiring a motion for reconsideration before appeal would be futile where RTC implicitly overruled petitioner’s objections by approv
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 149051)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed an action for redemption of a parcel of land in General Santos City before RTC, Branch 23, which was dismissed by the trial court.
- Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, upholding petitioner’s right to redeem; private respondent’s ensuing certiorari petition to the Supreme Court was denied (G.R. No. 103204, Feb. 19, 1992).
- Petitioner failed to redeem within 30 days; private respondent moved to declare the redemption period terminated, which the RTC denied (May 29, 1992).
- Court of Appeals granted private respondent’s certiorari petition, nullifying the RTC order; this Court denied petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit (G.R. No. 113534).
- A writ of execution followed, but the Register of Deeds initially refused to transfer title; subsequent CA and Supreme Court decisions (CA-G.R. SP No. 40348; G.R. No. 127941, Jan. 28, 1999) directed issuance of title and writs of execution and possession in respondent’s favor.
- On remand, the RTC issued writs of execution and possession (May 10, 1999) and the Register of Deeds issued a certificate of title to private respondent.
- A boundary dispute over Lots 2-G-1 and 2-G-2 led the trial court to order a DENR relocation survey by Engr. Dida (Jan. 13–14, 2000).
- Petitioner moved for a verification survey (Mar. 13, 2000); the trial court took Engr. Dida’s testimony ex parte and directed memoranda without ruling on that motion.
- The RTC approved the DENR survey report (Aug. 4, 2000), denied petitioner’s notice of appeal (Oct. 2, 2000), and denied reconsideration (Feb. 9, 2001).
- Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 63375); the CA denied relief (July 4, 2001), ruling the order approving the survey was an unappealable incident of execution.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 149051