Lomondot v. Balindong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Omaira and Saripa Lomondot filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against respondents Ambog Pangandamun and Simbanatao Diaca, claiming ownership of an 800-square-meter parcel of land. They alleged that Pangandamun illegally encroached upon 100 square meters and Diaca occupied 200 square meters of their property. The respondents asserted ownership over the disputed land. After trial, the Shari'a District Court (SDC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them owners of the land and ordering the respondents to vacate the encroached portions and remove any improvements. The SDC also awarded damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Procedural History: Respondents appealed the SDC's decision, but their appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court for failure to show grave abuse of discretion. The SDC decision became final and executory. Petitioners then moved for the issuance of a writ of execution with a prayer for a writ of demolition. The SDC granted the writ of execution, commanding the respondents to vacate and remove improvements, or face demolition upon a special court order. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion for a writ of demolition. The SDC, however, held the resolution in abeyance, citing ongoing negotiations for amicable settlement and the need for a survey to determine encroachment, issuing several orders to this effect. The SDC ultimately denied the motion for demolition, ordering parties to choose a geodetic engineer for a survey. Petitioners' motions for reconsideration were also denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, stating such petitions should be filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Shari'a District Court's Orders dated November 9, 2009, January 5, 2010, and February 10, 2010. They argue that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by denying the motion for a writ of demolition after the writ of execution could not be implemented and instead directing a survey. Petitioners contend that ordering a survey to determine encroachment would amend a final and executory decision. They also raise an issue regarding the judge's alleged absence during a scheduled hearing. The Supreme Court found that the SDC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for demolition, as the issue of encroachment was already settled by the final and executory decision and could not be considered a supervening event. The Court ordered the issuance of a writ of demolition to enforce the final decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Shari'a District Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for issuance of a writ of demolition after the writ of execution could not be implemented and instead directing the conduct of a survey. Whether the Shari'a District Court committed grave abuse of discretion in making it appear that it was present in court on January 28, 2010, when the parties were present, but the judge was not.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated November 9, 2009, January 5, 2010, and February 10, 2010, of the Shari'a District Court, Fourth Shari'a Judicial District, Marawi City are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. The Shari'a District Court is ORDERED to ISSUE a writ of demolition to enforce its Decision dated January 31, 2005 in Civil Case No. 055-91.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion in Denying the Writ of Demolition: The Supreme Court found that the Shari'a District Court (SDC) committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion for a writ of demolition. The SDC's Decision dated January 31, 2005, which ordered respondents to vacate encroached portions and remove improvements, had attained finality and an entry of judgment was made. This final and executory decision could no longer be modified or amended, as per the doctrine of finality of judgment. The Court reiterated that once a judgment becomes final, it becomes immutable and unalterable, even if the modification is intended to correct perceived errors. The SDC's reliance on the respondents' claim of non-encroachment and compliance with the writ of execution as a 'supervening event' was deemed erroneous. The Court clarified that a supervening event, as an exception to the execution of a final judgment, must directly affect the matter litigated and substantially change the parties' rights, rendering execution unjust, impossible, or inequitable. The issue of whether respondents' houses intruded upon petitioners' land was precisely the matter already litigated and decided. Allowing a survey to re-determine this issue would be tantamount to modifying a final and executory decision. The Court emphasized that execution is the fruit and end of a suit, and a judgment left unexecuted would be an empty victory. The issuance of a special order of demolition is the necessary and logical consequence of the execution of a final and immutable decision, as provided under Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The delay in execution for years was also noted as a factor against the SDC's stance. Therefore, the SDC's denial of the motion for demolition was set aside, and the court was ordered to issue the writ. On the Issue of the Judge's Presence in Court: While the petition raised the issue of the judge's alleged absence from his sala on January 28, 2010, the Supreme Court did not explicitly rule on this specific point in its main decision. The focus of the Court's resolution was on the grave abuse of discretion committed by the SDC in denying the writ of demolition. The procedural history indicates that the SDC issued orders on January 5, 2010, and February 10, 2010, denying motions for reconsideration, and the issue of the judge's presence on a specific date was part of the grounds raised in the petition for certiorari. However, the Supreme Court's ultimate decision to grant the petition and order the issuance of the writ of demolition rendered the specific factual dispute regarding the judge's presence less critical to the final outcome, as the core issue of enforcing the final judgment was resolved in favor of the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
A Shari'a District Court commits grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion for a writ of demolition to enforce a final and executory judgment based on a claimed 'supervening event' that merely rehashes the issue already decided, as this amounts to modifying a judgment that has become immutable and unalterable.