509 Phil. 178
CORONA, J.:
Accordingly, this Court, after a judicious scrutiny of the position taken by the defendants finds defendants' motion to be impressed with merit. Plaintiff Natalia Realty is hereby ordered to surrender or restore the possession of the subject property to herein defendants.On May 20, 1992, petitioner filed an urgent manifestation and motion to set aside the orders dated August 26, 1991 and April 20, 1992. In denying the motion, the trial court held that:
Let copies of this Order be furnished each of the parties and their respective counsel.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On April 23, 1993, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari assailing the dismissal of its motion. In its decision[6] dated June 18, 1993, the CA dismissed the petition reasoning as follows:xxx xxx xxx
The questioned order dated August 26, 1991 dismissing the case for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits and is understood to be with prejudice (Sec. 3, Rule 17, Rules of Court). Moreover, the order has already become final and executory as plaintiff failed to file a motion for reconsideration or to appeal the same within the 15-day reglementary period from its receipt of said Order on September 21, 1991. For this reason alone, this Court has already lost jurisdiction to modify or alter the August 26, 1991 order. The rule is that once a judgment or order has become final and executory, said judgment or order can no longer be amended, much less revoked, by the Court, and the only authority left is to order its execution.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, plaintiff's urgent manifestation and motion is hereby denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Moreover, the petition seeks to reopen the trial of a case which has already been dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute, and from which order of dismissal no motion for reconsideration nor appeal was admittedly taken despite receipt of the order on September 21, 1991. The trial court is correct when it ruled that for this reason alone, the court had already lost jurisdiction to modify or alter the August 26, 1991 order, following the settled rule that once a judgment or order has become final and executory said judgment or order can no longer be amended, much less revoked by the court, and the only authority left is to order its execution.[7]On December 21, 1993, judgment was entered on the case.
(1) the decision of the trial court dated August 26, 1991 dismissing the complaint for recovery of possession filed by herein petitioner;On August 3, 1995, Judge Querubin issued an order granting private respondents' motion for execution pursuant to the above resolution of the CA:
(2) the order of the trial court dated April 20, 1992 ordering petitioner to surrender possession of the property to private respondents, and
(3) the decision of the fifth division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30787 dated June 18, 1993 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner.[9]
Let the corresponding Writ of Execution be issued directing the Deputy Sheriff of this Court to cause the plaintiff to surrender or restore the possession of portions of the parcels of land covered by TCT No. 31527 and 31528 (now No. N-67845) to the defendants which were in possession of the latter prior to the implementation of the temporary restraining order dated January 30, 1994.[10]Judge Querubin, however, inhibited himself from further acting on the case and the case was re-raffled to Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal with Judge Felix Z. Caballes as presiding judge. On November 6, 1995, Judge Caballes granted petitioner's MR and reversed the resolution of the CA citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian Reform as a supervening event.
x x x the Court RESOLVED, a) that in view of the resolution dated June 27, 1995 which is hereby REITERATED, the plaintiff-appellee's motion dated July 10, 1995 is NOTED, b) to REQUIRE Hon. Felix Caballes of RTC-Br. 71, Antipolo, Rizal to COMMENT why he should not be held in contempt of court for disobeying the lawful orders, decisions of this Court within 10 days from notice hereof.[11]Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the above resolution but it was denied. And so it filed a petition for certiorari with this Court seeking to annul the June 27, 1995 resolution of the former Ninth Division of the CA. Also assailed in the petition was the CA resolution dated June 19, 1996 reiterating the June 27, 1995 resolution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, shall forthwith issue and cause to be immediately enforced an ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION of the Order of August 3, 1995 granting possession to private respondents of portions of the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now No. N-67845). This decision is immediately executory. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the records of the case to the court of origin.On February 20, 2003, the court a quo again issued an alias writ of execution pursuant to the above order of this Court.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.[14]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the above-entitled motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the writ of execution dated February 20, 2003 already issued by this Court implementing in exact terms the dispositive portion of the High Court's final and executory decision stands and is hereby reiterated.Both petitioner and private respondent Martinez moved for a reconsideration of the above order. On October 17, 2003, the trial court granted private respondent Martinez's MR:
SO ORDERED.[15]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby resolves to GRANT the instant motion for reconsideration. The Order dated May 15, 2003 issued by Presiding Judge of Branch 74 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.In an effort to again frustrate the final orders of the courts, petitioner filed an MR but this was denied. On February 20, 2004, an alias writ of execution was again issued together with a notice to petitioner to vacate the subject property within three working days from receipt thereof.[17]
Let an alias writ of execution be issued in accordance with the order dated August 3, 1995.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Petitioner's contention is bereft of merit.In this petition for review under Rule 45, petitioner assails the above decision of the CA for being contrary to law and established jurisprudence. It contends that both the trial court and the CA erred because they failed to state to what portions of its property respondents should be restored. This they claim is a deprivation of due process of law and a disregard of the basic rule of evidence.
The pertinent portion of the questioned Order dated April 20, 1992 reads, "justice and equity dictate that the parties in this case be restored to their original position or status which precedes the filing of the case. Accordingly, this Court, after a judicious scrutiny of the position taken by the defendants, finds defendants" position to be impressed with merit. Plaintiff Natalia is hereby ordered to surrender or restore possession of subject property to herein defendants." Obviously, the subject property refers to all portions of the land in litigation which were in the possession of respondents prior to the implementation of the temporary restraining order dated January 30, 1984.
Furthermore, a closer examination of petitioner's allegations, under paragraph 4 of its Complaint for Recovery of Possession reveals that the property in litigation is specifically identified as two contiguous parcels of land situated at Sitio Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now No. N-67845) of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, at Marikina Branch. Clearly, there is no merit in petitioner's contention that the Order dated August 3, 1995, reiterating the April 20, 1992, is impossible to implement. We likewise find that the Alias Writ of Execution is neither vague nor ambiguous.[20]