BUGARIN VS. PALISOC (G.R. NO. 157985.

DECEMBER 2, 2005)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

A complaint for ejectment was filed before the MeTC by Palisoc et al.
(Palisoc) against Bugarin et al. (Bugarin). The MeTC declared Palisoc as
the rightful possessors and ordered Bugarin to vacate the premises and pay
Palisoc et al. the rentals.
Bugarin appealed to the RTC while Palisoc moved for execution pending
appeal. The RTC denied the appeal and affirmed the MeTC decision.
Bugarin filed an MR with Opposition to the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution. The RTC denied the MR and granted Palisocs motion for
execution for failure of Bugarin to post a supersedeas bond or to pay the
back rentals. This decision was received by Bugarin on March 12, 2003. A
writ of execution pending appeal was issued.
Bugarin filed a Motion to Defer Implementation of the Writ of Execution.
Palisoc filed a Motion to Issue a Special Order of Demolition since Bugarin
refused to vacate the premises. The RTC deferred action on the motions to
allow Bugarin to exhaust legal remedies available to them. Bugarin filed a
Supplement to the Motion to Defer Implementation of Writ of Execution
and Opposition to Motion to Issue Special Order of Demolition, contending
that Section 28 of RA 7279 was not complied with.
Palisoc filed a Motion Reiterating the Motion for Issuance of Special Order
of Demolition. The RTC declared the decision denying Bugarins appeal
final and executory, and remanded the records of the case to the MeTC
without acting on the motions.
On April 10,2003 Bugarin filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition before the CA. Bugarin contended that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in affirming the MeTC decision and insisted that
the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint.
The MeTC eventually issued the Special Order of Demolition.

ISSUE: W/N the petition for certiorari & prohibition filed by Bugarin before the CA
was proper? NO.
The arguments of parties before the SC:
Bugarins contention:
(1) The MeTCs orders violated the mandatory requirements of RA 7279 since there
was no 30-day notice prior to the date of eviction or demolition and there had been
no consultation on the matter of resettlement.
(2) There was neither relocation nor financial assistance given.
(3) The orders are patently unreasonable, impossible and in violation of the law.
Palisocs contention:
(1) RA 7279 is not applicable. There was no proof that Bugarin et al. are registered as
eligible socialized housing program beneficiaries.
(2) Even if RA 7279 was applicable, the required notices under the law had already been
complied with. Bugarin were already notified on March 7, 2003 of an impending
demolition, when the writ of execution was served.

HELD:

A judgment in an ejectment case is immediately executory to avoid further

injustice to a lawful possessor, and the courts duty to order the execution is
practically ministerial. The defendant (Bugarin) may stay it only by: (1)
perfecting an appeal; (2) filing a supersedeas bond; and (3) making a
periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal.
o Once the RTC decides on the appeal, such decision is immediately
executory, without prejudice to an appeal, via a petition for review,
before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to
certiorari because one of the requirements for the certiorari is that there
should be no appeal.
However, Bugarin failed to file a petition for review. Bugarin received on
March 12, 2003 the RTC decision denying their MR. They had until March
27, 2003 to file a petition for review (appeal) before the CA. Instead, they
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on April 10, 2003.
The remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits
in the instant case is appeal.
o This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the
judgment is: (1) its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
the exercise of power in excess thereof; (3) or GADLEJ.
Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter
remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence.
Bugarins petition for certiorari before the CA was filed as a substitute for
the lost remedy of appeal. Thus, the filing of the petition for certiorari did
not prevent the RTC decision from becoming final and executory.
Notes:
The RTC acted correctly when it remanded the case to the MeTC. The MeTC cannot
be faulted for issuing the order to enforce the RTC judgment. The orders also did not
violate RA 7279 wherein eviction or demolition may be allowed when there is a
court order for eviction and demolition, as in the case at bar. Nothing is shown on
record that Bugarin et al. are underprivileged and homeless citizens as defined in RA
7279. The procedure for the execution of the eviction or demolition order under RA
7279 is not applicable. Lastly, the order of demolition had already been executed.
Bugarin had already vacated the area and Palisoc now possess the properties free
from all occupants, as evidenced by the sheriffs turn-over of possession. Thus, the
instant case before us has indeed become moot and academic.