G.R. No. 157985 - Bugarin vs. Palisoc

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157985)

Factual Background

The controversy arose from Civil Case No. 11799, an ejectment action filed by Cecilia B. Palisoc and Marina B. Mata before the MeTC. In a decision dated February 27, 2002, the MeTC declared respondents the rightful possessors of the properties and ordered petitioners to vacate and to pay rentals. Petitioners appealed to the RTC while private respondents moved for execution pending appeal.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings

On January 8, 2003, the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision with the modification that petitioners must start paying rentals from the date of the appealed decision. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on January 28, 2003, and opposed the issuance of a writ of execution. On March 3, 2003, the RTC denied the motion and granted private respondents’ motion for execution on the ground that petitioners failed to post a supersedeas bond or to pay back rentals. A writ of execution pending appeal issued and was served on petitioners on March 7, 2003, together with a notice to vacate.

Proceedings in the MeTC and Subsequent Motions

Petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Implementation of the Writ of Execution on March 11, 2003. On March 14, 2003, private respondents moved for issuance of a special order of demolition alleging refusal to vacate. The RTC deferred action to allow exhaustion of legal remedies. Petitioners supplemented their motion, contending noncompliance with Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279. Private respondents reiterated their motion on April 4, 2003. Although the RTC remanded the case to the MeTC in an order dated April 11, 2003, petitioners had filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary prohibitory injunction before the Court of Appeals on April 10, 2003.

MeTC Orders and Execution

The MeTC set the motion for hearing and, in an order dated April 30, 2003, granted the motion for issuance of a special order of demolition and gave petitioners five (5) days from receipt to voluntarily vacate and remove structures. The branch sheriff reported on May 6, 2003, that petitioners refused to vacate. Petitioners moved to quash and recall the April 30 order and the special order of demolition. The MeTC denied the motion and issued the Special Order of Demolition on May 9, 2003. The sheriff thereafter effected turnover of possession to private respondents on May 19, 2003.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners maintained that the MeTC orders violated the mandatory requirements of Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279 because there was no thirty (30) day notice prior to eviction or demolition and because there was no adequate consultation regarding resettlement. They alleged absence of relocation or financial assistance and characterized the MeTC orders as unreasonable, impossible, and contrary to law.

Respondents’ Contentions

Private respondents countered that Republic Act No. 7279 did not apply because petitioners failed to prove registration as eligible socialized housing beneficiaries under the Implementing Rules and Regulations. They further contended that, even if the statute applied, the statutory notices had been complied with, since petitioners were notified on March 7, 2003 when the writ of execution was served.

Legal Issues Presented

The central issue was whether the MeTC orders of April 30, 2003 and May 9, 2003 were proper in light of the immediate executory effect of the RTC judgment and the alleged protections afforded by Republic Act No. 7279, particularly Section 28(c).

Court’s Analysis of Execution and Available Remedies

The Court observed that under Section 19, Rule 70, a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action is immediately executory to prevent further injustice to a lawful possessor and that the duty to order execution is practically ministerial. The defendant may stay execution only by perfecting an appeal, filing a sufficient supersedeas bond, and making periodic deposits of rent or compensation during the appeal. Once the RTC decided the appeal, the judgment became immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70, without prejudice to further appeal. The Court relied on pertinent precedents, including Puncia v. Gerona, Lim v. Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation, and Uy v. Santiago, for these propositions.

Timeliness of Petitioners’ Remedies and Use of Certiorari

The Court found that petitioners received the RTC order denying their motion for reconsideration on March 12, 2003 and had until March 27, 2003 to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Instead, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on April 10, 2003. The Court held that the proper remedy to challenge the merits of the judgment was appeal and that certiorari cannot substitute for an appeal where an appeal is available. The Court cited authority holding that certiorari is not available if a remedy by appeal exists and was lost through fault or negligence. Because petitioners did not pursue the available appeal, the RTC decision became final and executory and the RTC properly remanded the case to the MeTC for execution.

Application of Republic Act No. 7279, Section 28

The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that Section 28(c) of Republic Act No. 7279 barred execution. T

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157985)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ZENAIDA BUGARIN et al., Petitioners were occupants ordered ejected in an action for forcible entry and detainer in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 77.
CECILIA B. PALISOC and MARINA B. MATA, Respondents were the private plaintiffs who obtained possession and sought execution and demolition.
The MeTC rendered judgment on February 27, 2002 declaring respondents rightful possessors and ordering petitioners to vacate and pay rentals.
Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 274, while respondents moved for execution pending appeal.
The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision on January 8, 2003 with modification that rentals start from the date of the appealed decision.
The RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2003 and granted execution pending appeal for failure to post a supersedeas bond or deposit rentals.
A writ of execution and notice to vacate were served on petitioners on March 7, 2003, and petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Implementation on March 11, 2003.
The RTC remanded the case to the MeTC on April 11, 2003 and records show the MeTC issued an Order dated April 30, 2003 giving petitioners five days to vacate and a Special Order of Demolition on May 9, 2003.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary prohibitory injunction before the Court of Appeals on April 10, 2003 and later sought a petition for review with prayer for TRO before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for mootness and lack of merit.

Key Factual Allegations

The MeTC action arose from Civil Case No. 11799, an ejectment suit in which respondents prevailed.
Petitioners allegedly refused to vacate after service of the writ of execution and notice to remove improvements.
The MeTC gave petitioners five days by order dated April 30, 2003 to vacate and remove structures.
The Branch Sheriff reported on May 6, 2003 that petitioners refused to vacate, prompting issuance of the Special Order of Demolition on May 9, 2003.
The sheriff's turn-over of possession dated May 19, 2003 reflected that respondents possessed the properties free from occupants.

Issues Presented

Whether the orders of the MeTC dated April 30, 2003 and May 9, 2003 were proper.
Whether Republic Act No. 7279, particularly Section 28, applied to petitioners and required compliance with mandatory eviction and demolition procedures.
Whether petitioners could invoke certiorari as a substitute for an appeal to stay execution.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners argued that Section 28 of Rep. Act No. 7279 was not complied with because there was no thirty-day notice, no consultations on resettlement, no relocation, and no financial assistance.
Petitioners contended that the MeTC orders were unreasonable, impossible to comply with, and violative of law.
Respondents maintained that Rep. Act No. 7279 did not apply because petitioners were not proven registered as socialized housing beneficiaries under the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Respondents further asserted that requisite notices had been given, citing service of the writ of execution on March 7, 2003.

Statutory Framework

Section 28, Republic Act No. 7279 discourages eviction and