David v. Spouses Navarro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute stems from the estate of Andrew David, who was shot and killed. His mother, Rosita David (petitioner), and his wife, Teodora David, both sought to administer his estate. Teodora, as a suspect in Andrew's death, proceeded to sell Andrew's personal properties and a parcel of land. She executed a conditional sale of the land, covered by TCT No. 14793, to respondents Spouses Rod and Cynthia Navarro for P4,500,000.00. The Navarros paid a P1,000,000.00 down payment and took possession of the property, using it for their car sale business and allowing caretakers to reside there. Rosita David did not consent to this sale, having her own prospective buyer. Rosita later filed an affidavit of adverse claim over the property and subsequently filed a complaint to annul the deed of conditional sale. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the deed of conditional sale null and void, ordering Teodora David to pay attorney's fees and costs. Teodora and the Navarros appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). Concurrently, Rosita David filed an unlawful detainer case against the Navarros, seeking their eviction and payment of rentals, as they occupied the property without paying rent. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Rosita, ordering the Navarros to vacate and pay rentals. The Navarros appealed this MTC decision. While their appeal was pending, they filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC to nullify the writ of execution issued by the MTC pending appeal, which the RTC dismissed. The Navarros then filed an urgent motion with the CA for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the MTC's writ of execution. The CA granted the TRO, and later a preliminary injunction, despite Rosita's arguments that the writ had already been implemented and that the Navarros were guilty of forum shopping. The RTC later reversed the MTC's decision in the unlawful detainer case, rendering the MTC's writ of execution functus officio. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction filed by Rosita David under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. She assails the March 15, 2000 Resolution and the August 25, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner argues that the CA should have dismissed the Navarros' appeal due to forum shopping and failure to comply with procedural rules. She also contends that the CA's issuance of a preliminary injunction was improper as the act sought to be enjoined (enforcement of the MTC's writ of execution) had already been accomplished. Petitioner seeks to prohibit the CA from deciding the case on its merits, compel the CA to dismiss the Navarros' case, and order the Navarros to vacate the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal of the private respondents on the ground of forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction when the act sought to be enjoined had already been accomplished, and whether the CA's issuance of injunctive relief contravened mandatory provisions. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal of the private respondents for their failure to comply with Section 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court; however, the central issue is the validity and effect of the CA's actions given the subsequent RTC decision.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that the rule on forum shopping applies where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. In this case, the RTC dismissed the private respondents' petition for certiorari outright for failing to append certified copies of the assailed orders. Therefore, there was no judgment on the merits. Furthermore, the private respondents filed an urgent motion with the Court of Appeals, not a second petition or complaint, seeking injunctive relief. Thus, they were not guilty of forum shopping. On the issue of the preliminary injunction being a fait accompli and the CA's issuance of injunctive relief despite mandatory provisions: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Court of Appeals imprudently issued the temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. By February 11, 1999, the writ of execution had already been enforced, and the petitioner was placed in possession of the property. Case law dictates that a writ of preliminary injunction will not issue if the act sought to be enjoined is a fait accompli. Therefore, the injunctive relief granted by the CA was rendered moot by the prior enforcement of the MTC's writ of execution. The Court noted that the MTC was mandated to issue a writ of execution pending appeal for the private respondents' refusal to file a supersedeas bond, as per Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The CA's issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the eviction, allowed the private respondents to remain in the property despite this mandatory provision. The proper remedy for the private respondents to nullify the MTC's order was a petition for certiorari with the RTC, which they filed but was dismissed. They failed to refile the petition with a plea for injunctive relief, and instead filed an urgent motion with the CA, effectively obtaining the same relief they failed to secure from the RTC due to their procedural lapse. On the petitioner's contention regarding the dismissal of the appeal and the ultimate disposition: The Court found the petitioner's contention that the CA erred in denying her motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Section 1(b) of Rule 50 in relation to Section 13(d), Rule 44 of the Rules of Court to be moot and academic. This was because the petitioner had already filed her Brief, and the appellate court had deemed the case submitted for decision. Despite agreeing with the petitioner that the CA imprudently issued the injunctive reliefs, the Court dismissed the petition because the RTC, in its decision in Civil Case No. 36859, reversed the MTC's decision in Civil Case No. 20064, ordering the dismissal of the complaint for being prematurely filed. Consequently, the writ of execution issued by the MTC had become functus officio. Under Section 21 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the decision of the RTC on appeal is immediately executory. Thus, there was no longer a need for the Supreme Court to nullify the CA's writ of preliminary injunction.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary injunction will not issue if the act sought to be enjoined is a fait accompli. Furthermore, a writ of execution pending appeal, issued conformably to Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, cannot be enjoined by a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, especially when the Regional Trial Court subsequently reverses the Municipal Trial Court's decision, rendering the writ of execution functus officio.