Casanova v. Lacsamana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fredeswinda R. Casanova was the defendant in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 10977) filed by private respondent Jose V. Ochoa in the City Court of Pasay City, Branch II. Petitioner claimed ownership of the lot and possession for over thirty years. Respondent Judge rendered a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Jose V. Ochoa on March 5, 1976, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay back rentals, and damages. Procedural History: Petitioner moved for reconsideration and suspension of the order of execution, citing General Order No. 53 which suspended ejectment and demolition orders. Private respondent opposed, arguing General Order No. 53 did not apply as the ejectment was due to petitioner's failure as a lessee. Private respondent then filed motions for issuance of an order of demolition and alias writ of execution. The respondent Judge considered these motions submitted for resolution without further oral argument, denying petitioner's subsequent motion for postponement. On July 8, 1976, the respondent Judge denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration and granted private respondent's motions, ordering the Sheriff to demolish petitioner's house. A notice of demolition was issued, setting the demolition for July 30, 1976. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to annul the demolition order and notice, and to enjoin their enforcement. Petitioner contended that the respondent Judge failed to observe Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court by not setting the demolition motions for hearing and not fixing a reasonable time for her to remove her house, rendering the order void. Private respondents argued that the ejectment judgment was final and executory, and petitioner was given ample time to remove her structure.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing a demolition order without the due hearing and the fixing of a reasonable time for removal required by Rule 39, Section 14.
Ruling
The Court found the petitioner's contention meritorious. The order of demolition dated July 8, 1976, and the Sheriff's Notice of Demolition were set aside. The respondent Judge was ordered to accord petitioner a reasonable time to remove her house from the premises after a formal hearing, in accordance with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that while the underlying decision in the ejectment case was final and executory, the enforcement involving the removal of improvements is strictly governed by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. This provision mandates that a sheriff shall not destroy or demolish improvements except upon a 'special order of the court' issued after a 'due hearing' and after the debtor has 'failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.' In this case, the respondent Judge erred by considering the motion for demolition as submitted for resolution without a formal hearing and without giving the petitioner the opportunity to be heard on that specific motion. Furthermore, the court's order was fatally defective because it did not specify a 'reasonable time' for the petitioner to remove her house, which is a mandatory requirement under the law. Citing Folloso v. Director of Lands, the Court emphasized that this requirement is not a mere empty gesture but a necessary safeguard to allow the defendant to protect their interest. Applying Rom v. Cobadora, the Court reiterated that the removal of a house pending a special order without complying with the dual requirements of a hearing and a fixed removal period constitutes a violation of procedural due process. Consequently, the demolition order issued in violation of these rules is null and void.
Main Doctrine
A court order for the demolition or removal of improvements on property subject to execution, constructed by the judgment debtor, requires a special order issued upon petition of the judgment creditor after due hearing and after the judgment debtor has failed to remove the improvements within a reasonable time fixed by the court, as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.