Carpio v. Oria
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1978, Macario Carpio (petitioner) accused spouses Gelacio and Marcelina Oria (respondents) of encroaching 137.45 square meters of his property and demanded rent. The spouses refused, leading to a legal dispute over possession and alleged encroachment. Procedural History: The petitioner's initial unlawful detainer case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) remanded the case to the RTC, directing it to try the case as an accion publiciana. The RTC subsequently ruled in favor of Carpio, finding encroachment and ordering respondents to vacate and pay rentals. The RTC granted immediate execution of its decision, which the respondents appealed via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA annulled the RTC's Omnibus Order granting immediate execution, finding it lacked a stated good reason, and ordered the RTC to act on the respondents' appeal. This Court affirmed the CA's decision, denying Carpio's petition for review. The Petition: Carpio filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to annul CA Resolutions that denied his motion to dismiss the respondents' appeal in the accion publiciana case. Carpio argued that the appeal had become moot and academic because a writ of execution, though issued pursuant to an order later annulled, had been implemented, resulting in the levy and auction sale of the respondents' property, with a new title issued in his name. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the writ of execution was void, rendering all actions pursuant to it without legal effect, and thus the appeal was not moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the case for accion publiciana on appeal with the Court of Appeals has been rendered moot and academic by the intervening implementation of a writ of execution pursuant to an RTC Omnibus Order that was later voided with finality by the Supreme Court. Whether the implementation of a void writ of execution, including the levy and auction sale of property, renders the appealed case moot and academic, and the effect of execution on the appeal itself.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated 4 October 2007 and 28 May 2008, which denied petitioner's Motion praying for the dismissal of respondents' appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 87256, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness due to the execution of a void writ: The Court held that the writ of execution issued by the RTC was void because the Omnibus Order granting immediate execution failed to state any good reason therefor, as required by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, all actions and proceedings conducted pursuant to this void writ, including the levy and auction sale of Spouses Oria's property, were also void and of no legal effect. The Court emphasized that the sheriff's duty to implement a writ is ministerial, but this does not validate actions taken under a void writ. Therefore, the satisfaction of the void writ did not render the appealed case moot and academic, as it would be as if the levy and auction never happened. The Court explicitly rejected the petitioner's reliance on Hulst v. P.R. Builders, stating that the validity of the writ itself was not in question in that case, unlike in the present one where the writ was declared void. On the effect of execution on the appeal: Even assuming the writ were not void, the Court clarified that the execution of a judgment does not automatically moot the issues on appeal. The Rules of Court provide for restitution or reparation in cases of reversal or annulment of an executed judgment, indicating that appeals remain relevant. The Court reiterated the definition of a moot and academic case, emphasizing the absence of a justiciable controversy or any practical value in adjudication. In this case, the accion publiciana appeal still presented unresolved justiciable controversies regarding encroachment, right to possession, potential claims for structures built in good faith, back rentals, and attorney's fees, all of which would have practical value and could lead to substantial relief for the parties.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution that is void for having been issued without compliance with the rules has no legal effect, and all actions taken pursuant to it are likewise void. Consequently, the satisfaction of a void writ does not render the appealed case moot and academic.