People v. Carantes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benedicto Carantes was charged with Violation of Section 301 in Relation to Section 213 of Presidential Decree No. 1096 (Building Without Permit) for constructing a house without the requisite permit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Carantes guilty and ordered his conviction, a fine of P5,000.00, and the demolition of the structures. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, which became final and executory on June 14, 1997. Procedural History: A writ of demolition was issued. Carantes voluntarily demolished one structure and paid the fine. He then filed a motion to limit the demolition to the structure built in April 1991, excluding one built by his father in 1970. The RTC denied this, stating the decision covered two structures. Carantes' motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, Carantes filed another manifestation (second motion for reconsideration) claiming a building permit was issued for the remaining structure on September 7, 1999, before the Information was filed. The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) argued that it, not the City Engineer, has the authority to issue permits in its area. Carantes also submitted a Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CAR-CALC) No. 022. On November 29, 1999, the RTC issued an Order modifying the CA's final decision, recognizing the building permit and the CAR-CALC, and ordering that no writ of execution shall issue for the demolition of the subject structure. PEZA's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: PEZA filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in modifying the final and executory decision of the CA by recognizing the building permit issued by the City Engineer, arguing that PEZA has exclusive authority over building permits in its area. PEZA also contended that the CAR-CALC is not proof of ownership.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in modifying the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals. Whether the building permit issued by the City Engineer of Baguio City and the Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim vested rights in respondent Carantes that would justify modifying a final and executory judgment.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The assailed Orders of the RTC, Branch 59, Baguio City, dated November 29, 1999 and January 17, 2000 in Criminal Case No. 9452-R are NULLIFIED. The trial court is ordered to fully implement the writ for the demolition of the remaining structure built by private respondent Carantes on the area owned by petitioner PEZA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of modifying a final and executory judgment: The Supreme Court held that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The court which rendered the judgment has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution. Parties cannot object to the execution by raising new issues of fact or law, except under specific circumstances outlined in Section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. These exceptions include variations in the judgment, changes in the parties' situations making execution inequitable, property exempt from execution, submission of the controversy to the court, unclear terms of the judgment, or an improvidently issued writ. In this case, none of these exceptions were present. The trial court's modification of the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals by recognizing a building permit issued after the judgment became final and a pending ancestral land claim constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the trial court should have denied Carantes' manifestation, which was essentially a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, outright. The subsequent issuance of a building permit or the existence of a pending claim over the land does not negate the finality of the conviction for building without a permit. On the validity of the building permit and ancestral land claim: The Court found that the building permit issued by the City Engineer of Baguio City had no force and effect within the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) area, as such authority is vested in the PEZA Administrator under Republic Act No. 7916 and Presidential Decree No. 66. Furthermore, even assuming the permit was valid, it was issued after the decision had become final and executory, and thus could not be used to alter the judgment. Regarding the Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CAR-CALC), the Court clarified that it is merely a registered claim and not proof of ownership. Carantes was a mere applicant for the issuance of a certificate of ownership of ancestral land and had not acquired a vested right as an owner that would exclude the area from PEZA's jurisdiction. Therefore, neither the building permit nor the CAR-CALC provided a valid basis to stay the execution of the demolition order.
Main Doctrine
A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, and the court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution. Parties cannot raise new issues of fact or law to object to execution, except under specific exceptions provided by law. Modifying a final and executory decision based on a subsequently issued building permit or a pending ancestral land claim constitutes grave abuse of discretion.