G.R. No.

183102 : February 27, 2013

MACARIO DIAZ CARPIO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES GELACIO G. ORIA and MARCELINA

DECISION

SERENO, J.:

In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we are asked to rule whether a case
for accion publiciana  on appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) has been rendered moot and academic
by an intervening implementation of a writ of execution pursuant to a Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Omnibus Order in Civil Case no. 97-148 later voided with finality by this Court.

DOCTRINE: A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the
issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which
a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts
generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness save when, among
others, a compelling constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet evading judicial
review.

FACTS: In 1978, petitioner Macario Carpio (Carpio) informed respondent spouses Gelacio and Marcelina
Oria (respondents Oria) of their alleged encroachment on his property to the extent of 137.45 square
meters. He demanded that respondents return the allegedly encroached portion and pay monthly rent
therefor. However, the spouses refused.

Petitioner filed an action for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Muntinlupa City which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The case was appealed to the RTC of
Muntinlupa City which affirmed the MeTCs Decision in toto. However, in a Petition for Review before it,
the CA held that the RTC should not have dismissed the case but should have tried it as one for accion
publiciana, as if it had originally been filed with the RTC, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Section 8, Rule 40 of
the 1997 Rules of Court.

Consequently, the case was remanded to the RTC pursuant to the CA ruling. The trial court rendered a
Decision dated 11 November 2003 finding that respondents Oria had encroached on the property of
Carpio by an area of 132 square meters; and requiring respondents to vacate the property and pay
monthly rentals to petitioner from the time he made the demand in 1978 until they would vacate the
subject property.

The petitioner filed a Motion for Immediate Execution. Thereafter, the respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision. On 17 March 2004, the RTC issued its assailed Omnibus Order denying
the Motion for Reconsideration and simultaneously granting the Motion for Immediate Execution of the
judgment.
On 6 April 2004, respondents filed their Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision and filed, as well, a Petition
for Certiorari questioning the RTCs Omnibus Order.

The respondents appealed the RTC Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 87256. The appeal is still pending
with the CA Special Eighth Division and petitioner is now, in the instant Petition, seeking its dismissal on
the ground of mootness.

Meanwhile, in their Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 84632, respondents imputed
grave abuse of discretion to the RTC for granting the Motion for Immediate Execution of the RTC
Decision and for failing to act on their appeal.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 84632, the CA First Division ruled that, on the matter of the grant of the writ of
execution of the RTC Decision pending appeal, the governing rule was Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court, since the RTC in its original jurisdiction had tried the case as one for accion publiciana. The
aforementioned provision requires that before a writ of execution pending appeal may issue at the
discretion of the trial court, the following requisites have to be met: (1) The trial court still has
jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal; (2)
There is a motion filed by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (3) There is a good
reason for issuing the writ of execution; (4) The good reason is stated in a special order.

The CA found that while the RTC still had jurisdiction to grant the Motion for Immediate Execution, the
latter stated no reason at all for the issuance of the writ. The statement of a good reason in a special
order is strictly required by the Rules of Court, because execution before a judgment has become final
and executory is the exception rather than the rule.

The CA also ruled that the failure of the RTC to act on the appeal likewise constituted grave abuse of
discretion, considering that respondents had correctly availed themselves of the proper mode of
appealing the main case for accion publiciana to the CA.

Thus, in a Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 84632 dated 14 April 2005, the CA First Division set aside the
portion of the Omnibus Order granting the Motion for Immediate Execution.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision was denied. Petitioner then filed before this
Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 168226. His Petition was
denied in a Resolution dated 12 December 2005 for failure to show reversible error on the part of the
CA. His Motion for Reconsideration was also denied with finality in a Resolution dated 13 March 2006.
With the issuance of an Entry of Judgment, the Resolution of this Court became final and executory on 4
April 2006.

On 26 April 2007, petitioner filed with the CA Special Eighth Division a Manifestation/Motion praying for
the dismissal of the appeal of respondents in CA-G.R. CV No. 87256, the main case for accion publiciana.
He argued that while the issue of the validity of the grant of immediate execution was being litigated,
the sheriff, in the meantime, executed the RTC Decision pursuant to the Omnibus Order. Petitioner
explained that the writ of execution had been satisfied by the levying of the property of respondents.
Thus, the judgment debt had been partially paid through a public auction sale of the property.
Consequently, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-43053 covering the levied property of respondents
Oria was cancelled and a new one entered in the name of petitioner, who was the highest bidder at the
auction sale. Hence, the latter asserted that the appealed case had become moot and academic.

In a Resolution dated 4 October 2007, the CA Special Eighth Division denied the Manifestation/Motion.
It reasoned that the Omnibus Order, pursuant to which the writ of execution had been invalidly issued,
was annulled by the CA First Division, and that the annulment was in fact affirmed by the Supreme
Court. Therefore, as the RTC Decision was not yet deemed executed, the CA Special Eighth Division ruled
that the appeal pending before the latter had not yet become moot and academic.

Hence, the instant Petition.

Petitioner merely rehashes his argument before the CA Special Eighth Division. He says that since the
writ of execution of the RTC Decision in the case for accion publiciana has been implemented, the case
is now moot and academic. He explains that, pursuant to the writ, the property of the spouses Oria
adjoining his own has been levied and sold to him. In fact, a Sheriffs Final Deed of Sale has been
executed in his favor, and the property has already been merged and transferred to his name under a
new TCT. Thus, he now contends that the spouses have no more proprietary right or practical relief
that can be further protected or adversely affected by their appeal. l1

ISSUE: Whether or not the case for accion publiciana on appeal with the CA has been rendered moot
and academic by the intervening implementation of the writ of execution of the RTC Decision pursuant
to the trial courts Omnibus Order, although the Order was later annulled with finality by the SC?

RULING: NO. The writ of execution is void; consequently, all actions pursuant to the void writ are of no
legal effect. To recall, the Court affirmed the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 84632, annulling the
RTCs Omnibus Order granting the Motion for Immediate Execution pending appeal. The Court affirmed
the CA Decision because of the RTC’s failure to state any reason, much less good reason, for the
issuance thereof as required under Section 2, Rule 39. In the exercise by the trial court of its
discretionary power to issue a writ of execution pending appeal, the Court emphasizes the need for
strict compliance with the requirement for the statement of a good reason, because execution pending
appeal is the exception rather than the rule. Since the writ of execution was manifestly void for having
been issued without compliance with the rules, it is without any legal effect.

Moreover, even assuming that the writ of execution in the instant case were not void, the execution of
the RTC judgment cannot be considered as a supervening event that would automatically moot the
issues in the appealed case for accion publiciana, which is pending before the CA. Otherwise, there
would be no use appealing a judgment, once a writ of execution is issued and satisfied. That situation
would be absurd. On the contrary, the Rules of Court in fact provides for cases of reversal or annulment
of an executed judgment. Section 5 of Rule 39 provides that in those cases, there should be restitution
or reparation as warranted by justice and equity. Therefore, barring any supervening event, there is still
the possibility of the appellate courts reversal of the appealed decision - even if already executed - and,
consequently, of a restitution or a reparation.

In any case, the issues in the appealed case for accion publiciana cannot, in any way, be characterized as
moot and academic.

A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be
of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner
would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally
decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness ~save when, among others, a
compelling constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet evading judicial review.
(Osmeña III v. SSS)

Applying the above definition to the instant case, it is obvious that there remains an unresolved
justiciable controversy in the appealed case for accion publiciana.