G.R. No.

192463, July 13, 2015

OMAIRA LOMONDOT AND SARIPA LOMONDOT, Petitioners, v. HON. RASAD G.

BALINDONG, PRESIDING JUDGE, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, 4TH SHARI'A
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MARAWI CITY, LANAO DEL SUR AND AMBOG
PANGANDAMUN AND SIMBANATAO DIACA, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of demolition
seeking to annul the Order1 dated November 9, 2009 of the Shari'a District Court
(SDC), Fourth Shari'a Judicial District, Marawi City, issued in Civil Case No. 055-91,
denying petitioners' motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition, and the
Orders2 dated January 5, 2010 and February 10, 2010 denying petitioners' first and
second motions for reconsideration, respectively.

The antecedent facts are as follows: Lawlibra ryofCRAlaw

On August 16, 1991, petitioners Omaira and Saripa Lomondot filed with the SDC,
Marawi City, a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with prayer for
mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order against respondents Ambog
Pangandamun (Pangandamun) and Simbanatao Diaca (Diaca). Petitioners claimed that
they are the owners by succession of a parcel of land located at Bangon, Marawi City,
consisting an area of about 800 sq. meters; that respondent Pangandamun illegally
entered and encroached 100 sq. meter of their land, while respondent Diaca occupied
200 sq. meters, as indicated in Exhibits “A” and “K” submitted as evidence.
Respondents filed their Answer arguing that they are the owners of the land alleged to
be illegally occupied. Trial thereafter ensued.

On January 31, 2005, the SDC rendered a Decision,3 the dispositive portion of which
reads: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows: LawlibraryofCR Alaw

1. DECLARING plaintiffs owners of the 800 square meter land borrowed and turned over
by BPI and described in the complaint and Exhibits “A” and “K”;

2. ORDERING defendants to VACATE the portions or areas they illegally encroached as

indicated in Exhibits “A” and “K” and to REMOVE whatever improvements thereat
introduced;

3. ORDERING defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiffs (a) P50,000.00 as moral
damages; (b) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; (C) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees
and the costs of the suit.
4
SO ORDERED
Respondents filed an appeal5 with us and petitioners were required to file their
Comment thereto. In a Resolution6 dated March 28, 2007, we dismissed the petition for
failure of respondents to sufficiently show that a grave abuse of discretion was
committed by the SDC as the decision was in accord with the facts and the applicable
law and jurisprudence. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied with finality
on September 17, 2007.7 The SDC Decision dated January 31, 2005 became final and
executory on October 31, 2007 and an entry of judgment8 was subsequently made.

Petitioners filed a motion9 for issuance of a writ of execution with prayer for a writ of
demolition.

On February 7, 2008, the SDC granted the motion10 for a writ of execution and the writ
was issued with the following fallo: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause the execution of the aforesaid
judgment. If defendants do not vacate the premises and remove the improvements,
you must secure a special order of the court to destroy, demolish or remove the
improvements on the property. The total amount awarded to and demanded by the
prevailing party is P150,000.00 (damages, attorney's fees and the cost) which
defendants must satisfy, pursuant to Section 8 (d) and (e), Rule 39, Rules of Court. 11

The Sheriff then sent a demand letter12 to respondents for their compliance.

On February 3, 2009, petitioners filed a Motion13 for the Issuance of a Writ of

Demolition to implement the SDC Decision dated January 31, 2005. The motion was set
for hearing.

On March 4, 2009, the SDC issued an Order14 reading as follows: LawlibraryofCR Alaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

The plaintiffs, the prevailing party, filed a Motion for Writ of Demolition and the motion
was set for hearing on February 16, 2009. On this date, the plaintiffs, without counsel,
appeared. The defendants failed to appear. Thus, the court issued an order submitting
the motion for resolution.

Resolution of the motion for issuance of a Writ of Demolition should be held in

abeyance. First, defendant Ambog Pangandamun has filed on February 6, 2009 an
Urgent Manifestation praying deferment of the hearing on the motion for writ of
execution. Second, Atty. Dimnatang T. Saro filed on February 13, 2009 a Notice of
Appearance with Motion to Postpone the hearing set on February 16, 2009 to study the
records of the case as the records are not yet in his possession. Third, the recent
periodic report dated January 26, 2009 of the Sheriff shows Sultan Alioden of
Kabasaran is negotiating the parties whereby the defendant Ambog Pangandamun will
be made to pay the five (5)-meter land of the plaintiffs encroached by him and that
what remains to be ironed out is the fixing of the amount.

WHEREFORE, the resolution on the Motion for Writ of Demolition is HELD IN ABEYANCE.
The Sheriff is DIRECTED to exert efforts to bring the parties back to the negotiating
table seeing to it that Sultan Alioden of Kabasaran is involved in the negotiation. Atty.
Saro is REQUIRED to file his comment on the motion for writ of execution within fifteen
(15) days from notice to guide the court in resolving the incident in the event the
negotiation fails.

SO ORDERED.15

On May 5, 2009, the SDC issued another Order16 which held in abeyance the resolution
of the motion for issuance of a writ of demolition and granted an ocular inspection or
actual measurement of petitioners' 800-sq.-meter land.

The SDC issued another Order17 dated May 14, 2009, which stated, among others,
that: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

While the decision has become final and executory and a Writ of Execution has been
issued, there are instances when a Writ of Execution cannot be enforced as when there
is a supervening event that prevents the Sheriff to execute a Writ of Execution.

The defendants claimed they have not encroached as they have already complied with
the Writ of Execution and their buildings are not within the area claimed by the
plaintiffs. This to the Court is the supervening event, thus the order granting the
request of Atty. Jimmy Saro, counsel for the defendants, to conduct a survey to
determine whether there is encroachment or not. Thus, the Order dated May 5, 2009.

Wherefore, Engr. Hakim Laut Balt is hereby commissioned to conduct a survey of the
800 square meters claimed by the plaintiffs. Said Eng. Balt is given a period of one (1)
month from notice within which to conduct the survey in the presence of the parties. 18

On November 9, 2009, the SDC issued the assailed Order19 denying petitioners' motion
for demolition. The Order reads in full: Lawlib raryofCR Alaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

It was on February 3, 2009 that the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of
Demolition. The defendants filed their comment thereto on March 24, 2009. They
prayed that an ocular inspection and/or actual measurement of the 800 square meter
land of the plaintiffs be made which the court granted, in the greater interest of justice,
considering that defendants claimed to have complied with the writ of execution, hence
there is no more encroachment of plaintiffs’ land.

The intercession of concerned leaders to effect amicable settlement and the order to
conduct a survey justified the holding in abeyance of the resolution of the pending
incident, motion for writ of demolition.

After attempts for settlement failed and after the commissioned Geodetic Engineer to
conduct the needed survey asked for relief, plaintiffs asked anew for a writ of
demolition. Defendants opposed the grant of the motion, alleging compliance with the
writ of execution, and prayed for appointment of another Geodetic Engineer to conduct
a survey and actual measurement of plaintiffs' 800 square meter land.

At this point in time, the court cannot issue a special order to destroy, demolish or
remove defendants' houses, considering their claim that they no longer encroach any
portion of plaintiffs’ land.
Gleaned from Engineer Hakim Laut Balt's Narrative Report, he could have conducted
the required survey had not the plaintiffs dictated him where to start the survey.

WHERFORE, the motion for issuance of a writ of demolition is DENIED. A survey is still
the best way to find out if indeed defendants' houses are within plaintiffs' 800 square
meter land. Parties are, therefore, directed to choose and submit to the court their
preferred Geodetic Engineer to conduct the survey within ten (10) days from notice. 20

Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration which the SDC denied in an
Order21 dated January 5, 2010 saying that the motion failed to state the timeliness of
the filing of said motion and failed to comply with the requirements of notice of hearing.
Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration was also denied in an Order 22 dated
February 10, 2010. The SDC directed the parties to choose and submit their preferred
Geodetic Engineer to conduct the survey within 15 days from notice.

Undaunted, petitioners filed with the CA-Cagayan de Oro City a petition

for certiorari assailing the Orders issued by the SDC on November 9, 2009, January 5,
2010 and February 10, 2010.

In a Resolution23 dated April 27, 2010, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction, saying, among others, that: Lawlibra ryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

x x x x

In pursuing the creation of Shari'a Appellate Court, the Supreme Court En Banc even
approved A.M. No. 99-4-06, otherwise known as Resolution Authorizing
the Organization of the Shari'a Appellate Court.

However, the Shari'a Appellate Court has not yet been organized until the present. We,
on our part, therefore, cannot take cognizance of the instant case because it emanates
from the Shari'a Courts, which is not among those courts, bodies or tribunals
enumerated under Chapter 1, Section 9 of [Batas] Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended
over which We can exercise appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the instant Petition should be
filed directly with the Supreme Court.24

Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari assailing the SDC Orders, invoking the
following grounds:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

RESPONDENT JUDGE, HONORABLE RASAD G. BALINDONG, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF
DEMOLITION AFTER THE WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED BY THE COURT COULD NOT BE
IMPLEMENTED AND INSTEAD DIRECT THE CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY.

RESPONDENT JUDGE HAD COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN MAKING IT

APPEAR THAT HE WAS IN COURT AT HIS SALA IN MARAWI CITY LAST JANUARY 28,
2010 WHEN THE PARTIES WERE PRESENT AND HE WAS NOT THERE. 25

Preliminarily, we would deal with a procedural matter. Petitioners, after receipt of the
SDC Order denying their second motion for reconsideration of the Order denying their
motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction in a Resolution dated April 27,
2010 saying that, under RA 9054, it is the Shari’a Appellate Court (SAC) which shall
exercise jurisdiction over petition for certiorari; that, however, since SAC has not yet
been organized, it cannot take cognizance of the case as it emanates from the Shari’a
Courts, which is not among those courts, bodies or tribunals enumerated under Chapter
1, Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, over which it can exercise
appellate jurisdiction.

Under Republic Act No. 9054, An Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, amending for the purpose Republic Act No.
6734, entitled, "An Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, as
amended", the Shari'a Appellate Court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari of decisions of the Shari'a District Courts. In Villagracia v. Fifth
(5th) Shari’a District Court,26 we said: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

x x x We call for the organization of the court system created under Republic Act No.
9054 to effectively enforce the Muslim legal system in our country. After all, the Muslim
legal system – a legal system complete with its own civil, criminal, commercial,
political, international, and religious laws — is part of the law of the land, and Shari’a
courts are part of the Philippine judicial system.

The Shari’a Appellate Court created under Republic Act No. 9054 shall exercise
appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari’a District Courts. It shall also
exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
habeas corpus, and other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.The decisions of the Shari’a Appellate Court shall be final and executory,
without prejudice to the original and appellate jurisdiction of this court.27

and

In Tomawis v. Hon. Balindong,28 we stated that: Lawlibra ryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

x x x [t]he Shari’a Appellate Court has yet to be organized with the appointment of a
Presiding Justice and two Associate Justices. Until such time that the Shari’a Appellate
Court shall have been organized, however, appeals or petitions from final orders or
decisions of the SDC filed with the CA shall be referred to a Special Division to be
organized in any of the CA stations preferably composed of Muslim CA Justices. 29

Notably, Tomawis case was decided on March 5, 2010, while the CA decision was
rendered on April 27, 2010. The CA's reason for dismissing the petition, i.e., the
decision came from SDC which the CA has no appellate jurisdiction is erroneous for
failure to follow the Tomawis ruling. However, we need not remand the case, as we
have, on several occasions,30 passed upon and resolved petitions and cases emanating
from Shari’a courts.

Petitioners contend that their land was specific and shown by the areas drawn in
Exhibits “A” and “K” and by oral and documentary evidence on record showing that
respondents have occupied portions of their land, i.e., respondent Pangandamun's
house encroached a 100 sq. meter portion, while respondent Diaca occupied 200 sq.
meters; and that the SDC had rendered a decision ordering respondents to vacate the
portions or areas they had illegally encroached as indicated in Exhibits “A” and “K” and
to remove whatever improvements thereat introduced. Such decision had already
attained finality and a corresponding entry of judgment had been made and a writ of
execution was issued. Petitioners' claim that the SDC's order for a conduct of a survey
to determine whether respondents' land are within petitioners' 800-sq.-meter land
would, in effect, be amending a final and executory decision.

Only respondent Pangandamun filed his Comment, arguing that petitioners' motion for
the issuance of a writ of demolition has no factual and legal basis because his houses
are clearly outside the 800-sq.-meter land of petitioners; that his house had been
constructed in 1964 within full view of the petitioners but none of them ever questioned
the same.

We find for the petitioners.

The SDC Decision dated January 31, 2005 ordered respondents to vacate the portions
or areas they had illegally encroached as indicated in Exhibits "A" and "K" and to
remove whatever improvements thereat introduced. Thus, petitioners had established
that they are recovering possession of 100 sq. meters of their land which was occupied
by respondent Pangandamun's house as indicated in Exhibit "K-1", and 200 sq. meter
portion being occupied by Diaca as indicated in Exhibit "K-2". Such decision had
become final and executory after we affirmed the same and an entry of judgment was
made. Such decision can no longer be modified or amended. In Dacanay v. Yrastorza,
Sr.,31 we explained the concept of a final and executory judgment, thus: Lawlibra ryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. A final and
executory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering
it or by the highest court of the land. This is the doctrine of finality of judgment. It is
grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the
risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some
definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigations, thus negating
the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the
maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.32

However, the SDC later found that while the decision has become final and executory
and a writ of execution has been issued, there are instances when a writ of execution
cannot be enforced as when there is a supervening event that prevents the sheriff to
execute the writ of execution. It found that respondents' claim that their buildings are
not within the area claimed by petitioners is a supervening event and ordered a survey
of the land, hence, denied the motion for a writ of demolition.

We do not agree.

It is settled that there are recognized exceptions to the execution as a matter of right of
a final and immutable judgment, and one of which is a supervening event.

In Abrigo v. Flores,33 we said: Lawlibra ryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

We deem it highly relevant to point out that a supervening event is an exception to the
execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment rule, only if it directly
affects the matter already litigated and settled, or substantially changes the rights or
relations of the parties therein as to render the execution unjust, impossible or
inequitable. A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment
became final and executory, or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment
attained finality, including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during
the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time. In that event, the
interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of
execution, or he may move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to
harmonize it with justice and the supervening event. The party who alleges a
supervening event to stay the execution should necessarily establish the facts by
competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive
effects of a final and immutable judgment.34

In this case, the matter of whether respondents' houses intruded petitioners' land is the
issue in the recovery of possession complaint filed by petitioners in the SDC which was
already ruled upon, thus cannot be considered a supervening event that would stay the
execution of a final and immutable judgment. To allow a survey as ordered by the SDC
to determine whether respondents' houses are within petitioners' land is tantamount to
modifying a decision which had already attained finality.

We find that the SDC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners'
motion for the issuance a writ of demolition. The issuance of a special order of
demolition would certainly be the necessary and logical consequence of the execution of
the final and immutable decision.35 Section 10(d) of Rule 39, Rules of Court provides: Lawlibra ryofCRAlaw

ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. —

x x x x

(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution.- when the property

subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the
judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said
improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the
judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same
within a reasonable time fixed by the court.

Notably, this case was decided in 2005 and its execution has already been delayed for
years now. It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is
the life of law.36 A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory
for the prevailing party.37 redarclaw

WHEREFORE, 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 hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. The Shari'a District
Court is hereby ORDERED to ISSUE a writ of demolition to enforce its Decision dated
January 31, 2005 in Civil Case No. 055-91.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals for
whatever action he may undertake in light of our pronouncement in the Tomawis v.
Hon. Balindong case quoted earlier on the creation of a Special Division to handle
appeals or petitions from trial orders or decisions of the Shari’a District Court.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibra ry

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,* Villarama, Jr., and Perez,** JJ.,
concur.

Endnotes: