Post

Joel Cordero vs. Gutierrez Development Co., Inc.

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
Joel Cordero vs. Gutierrez Development Co., Inc.

  1. Case Title and Citation

    Joel Cordero, Carolina Ramos, Estrella Reyes, represented herein by her heir Napoleon Damayo, Jr., a.k.a. “Jun Damayo,” Brenda Villafuerte, Antonio Ulat, Carlos Paquera, Carolina Paquera, Elsa Sanchez, Maria Lorna A. Loos, Bernardo Villagracia, represented herein by his heir Joel Villagracia, Rebecca Tejero, Eulalia Jaron, Shirley Ulat, and Marie Alba Josephine Santianes, petitioners, vs. Gutierrez Development Co., Inc., respondent.
    G.R. No. 205074; G.R. No. 231518, June 26, 2023
    Supreme Court - Second Division
    Ponente: Justice Kho, Jr.

  1. Facts

    • Respondent filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to fix the period of lease and adjust lease rentals over a parcel of land in Poblacion, Davao City (subject land), alleging ownership under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-52804 and asserting petitioners had occupied the property and failed to pay monthly rentals.
    • Petitioners claimed negotiations for lease extension or compensation for improvements and filed a counterclaim for the value of improvements (PHP 46,500,000.00), moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
    • RTC Decision dated August 31, 2006 fixed the lease period at two years at PHP 100.00 per month per petitioner, reasoning the lessor’s right to enjoy property could not be indefinitely deferred.
    • Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 00991-MIN; CA Decision dated September 25, 2008 affirmed the RTC and held the two-year period (reckoned from August 26, 2006) had expired, ordering petitioners to turn over possession.
    • Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on April 3, 2009; the CA Entry of Judgment rendered the CA ruling final and executory.
    • Respondent filed a Motion for Execution before the RTC on June 23, 2009. RTC Order dated September 18, 2009 granted the motion and a Writ of Execution was issued on September 28, 2009.
    • Petitioners sought reconsideration in the RTC, arguing the two-year period should be reckoned from the CA finality date (October 25, 2008); RTC denied the motion on May 15, 2010.
    • Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition with prayer for TRO/WPI before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 03631-MIN). The CA denied the TRO/WPI in Resolutions dated December 29, 2011 and November 19, 2012, and later, after submission of memoranda, denied the Rule 65 petition in a Decision dated June 22, 2016; denial of reconsideration was in a Resolution dated March 23, 2017.
    • Petitioners filed consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to this Court: G.R. No. 205074 (challenging denial of TRO/WPI) and G.R. No. 231518 (challenging CA’s affirmance that RTC did not gravely abuse discretion in issuing writ of execution).

  1. Issues

  2. In G.R. No. 205074, did the Court of Appeals correctly deny petitioners’ prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction?
  3. In G.R. No. 231518, did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the issuance of a writ of execution in favor of respondent pursuant to the CA ruling in CA-G.R. CV No. 00991-MIN?

  1. Ruling

  2. No - The petition in G.R. No. 205074 is dismissed as moot and academic because the main case had been resolved on the merits, rendering the incidentary issue of the TRO/WPI devoid of practical effect.
  3. Yes - The petition in G.R. No. 231518 is denied for lack of merit; the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing orders for execution of a final and executory CA judgment.

  1. Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

    • On mootness (Issue 1): The Court applied the doctrine that a case or issue becomes moot and academic when supervening events render any adjudication of no practical value. Because CA-G.R. SP No. 03631-MIN had been resolved on the merits, the collateral challenge to the denial of TRO/WPI presented no justiciable controversy and was dismissed (citing Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals).
    • On execution and grave abuse standard (Issue 2):
  2. Finality and immutability: The CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 00991-MIN became final and executory (Entry of Judgment), invoking the doctrine of immutability of final judgments; final judgments may not be modified and must be enforced to avoid indefinite suspension of rights (citing Aguinaldo IV v. People; Mauleon v. Porter).
  3. Execution as a matter of right: Under Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 1, execution issues as a matter of right upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action after the appeal period if no appeal is perfected. Thus, issuance of a writ of execution was ministerial.
  4. Grave abuse standard: The Court applied the narrow definition of “grave abuse of discretion” as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction; certiorari under Rule 65 is available only in truly extraordinary cases (citing Chua v. People and authorities).
  5. Application: The RTC’s issuance of the writ of execution, implemented to enforce the CA’s final judgment, was neither capricious nor arbitrary; it complied with binding appellate finality and the ministerial duty to execute final judgments. Therefore, no grave abuse was shown.

  1. Doctrine / Legal Principle

    • A petition challenging an incidentary order becomes moot and academic if the main case is later resolved on the merits; courts generally decline jurisdiction over such issues.
    • Final and executory judgments are immutable; once final, execution to enforce them is a matter of right.
    • Under Rule 39, Section 1, execution issues as a matter of right upon final judgment when no appeal has been perfected.
    • Grave abuse of discretion for purposes of certiorari under Rule 65 is a narrow ground requiring a patent and gross exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

  1. Disposition

    • The Petition in G.R. No. 205074 is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
    • The Petition in G.R. No. 231518 is DENIED for lack of merit.
    • The Decision dated June 22, 2016 and the Resolution dated March 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03631-MIN are AFFIRMED.

  1. Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

    • Concurring: Leonen, Acting Chief Justice; Lazaro-Javier (Working Chairperson); M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
    • No dissenting opinion noted.

  1. Significance / Notes

    • Reinforces that execution of a final appellate judgment is ministerial and a prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution as a matter of right.
    • Affirms the narrow scope of certiorari under Rule 65 and the high threshold to show grave abuse of discretion.
    • Demonstrates application of the doctrine of immutability of judgments to prevent relitigation and to preserve finality and certainty in judicial outcomes.
    • Illustrates the court’s approach to mootness: collateral or incidentary challenges lose justiciability once the main controversy is resolved on the merits.
Judicial Review Finality of Judgment
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.