|
PHILIPPINE
ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), represented by its Baguio City Economic Zone
Administrator, DIGNA TORRES,
Petitioner,
-
versus - ABRAHAM
B. BORRETA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 59,
and BENEDICTO CARANTES,
Respondents. |
G.R. No.
142669
Present: Puno, J., Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, * AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
This is a petition for certiorari and
mandamus seeking the annulment of the Orders dated November 29, 1999 and
January 17, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Baguio City, in
Criminal Case No. 9452-R, entitled
“People of the Philippines v. Benedicto Carantes y Umayon.”
Carantes, private respondent, was charged
with Violation of Section 301 in Relation to Section 213 of Presidential Decree
No. 1096 (Building Without Permit) in an Information which reads:
That
in or about the month of April 1991 in the City of Baguio, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously construct or cause to be
constructed a house at Magsaysay Drive, Brgy. Apugan, BCEPZA,
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On P5,000.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and “to remove or demolish the subject
structures.”
On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the RTC Decision. The Appellate
Court’s Decision became final and executory on
On P5,000.00.
In a Manifestation/Motion dated April
12, 1999 filed with the trial court, Carantes averred
that the writ should be limited only to the structure built “in or about the
month of April 1991” as alleged in the Information and should not include the
one built by his father sometime in 1970.
He prayed for the stay of execution.
On
Acting
upon the accused’s Manifestation/Motion dated
The Court of Appeals’ Decision, which also speaks of “structures,” having become final and executory, let a writ be issued for the demolition of the other structure of the accused subject of this case.
Carantes filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but it was denied on
The Decision of this Court needs no clarification. It is clear therefrom that the offense for which the accused was charged involved the construction of two structures, not one as claimed by the accused. In fact, the Resolution of the City Prosecutor finding a prima facie case of Violation of P.D. 1096 against the accused and which became the basis of accused’s prosecution in court also speaks of two houses or structures illegally constructed by the accused.
WHEREFORE,
finding no compelling or cogent reason to reconsider its Order dated
Two (2) months thereafter, or on
In its Comment dated October 16,
1999, the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), petitioner, maintained
that under Section 1, Rule VII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
Republic Act No. 7916,[1] it
is the PEZA which has the authority to issue building permits over structures
built within its area. Hence, the
building permit issued by the City Engineer of Baguio has no force and effect;
and assuming that the said building permit is in order, still, Carantes is liable after the Decision of the Court of
Appeals became final and executory.
In his Reply dated
On
1. The issuance of the building permit by the City
Engineer in favor of Carantes operates to legalize
the construction of the subject structure; and
2. The CAR-CALC No. 022 issued to Carantes
by the DENR vested in him a right over the area occupied by him.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and as prayed for by the accused, no writ of execution shall issue for the demolition of the subject structure.
Petitioner PEZA filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court in an Order dated
Private respondent Carantes countered that in refusing to issue the writ of
demolition, the trial court merely complied with the Local Government Code of
1991, authorizing the City Mayor to require owners of illegally built
buildings, houses, and other structures to obtain the necessary building
permit.
This petition is unmeritorious.
Carantes’ Manifestation dated September 20,
1999 that the City Engineer issued a building permit for the remaining
structure and that, therefore, the writ of demolition should be recalled, is
actually a second motion for reconsideration.
The trial court should have denied it outright, the same being a
prohibited motion.
Even assuming that said Manifestation
or second motion for reconsideration is in order, still, it should be denied
for lack of merit. Carantes
is a mere applicant for the issuance of a certificate of ownership of ancestral
land. In short, he has not acquired a
vested right as an owner thereof so as to exclude the same from the areas under
PEZA.
Moreover, Section 1, Rule 39 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. – Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
It is settled that when a judgment is
final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.[4] The judgment may no longer be modified in any
respect, except to correct clerical errors or to make nunc
pro tunc entries.
The court which rendered judgment has the ministerial duty to issue a
writ of execution. The parties may not
object to the execution by raising new issues of fact or law, except under the
following circumstances:
1)
the writ of execution varies the judgment;
2)
there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution
inequitable or unjust;
3) execution
is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
4) it
appears that the controversy has been submitted to the judgment of the court;
5) the
terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for
interpretation thereof; or
6) it appears that the writ of execution has
been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or issued
against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied,
or the writ was issued without authority.[5]
We find that none of these exceptions
is present in this case.
We, therefore, hold that the trial
court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in issuing the challenged Orders modifying the final and executory Decision of
the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The assailed Orders of the RTC, Branch 59,
Baguio City, dated November 29, 1999 and January 17, 2000 in Criminal Case No.
9452-R are NULLIFIED. The trial
court is ordered to fully implement the writ for the demolition of the
remaining structure built by private respondent Carantes
on the area owned by petitioner PEZA.
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice
Chairperson |
|
|
(On sick leave) RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate
Justice |
|
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Chief Justice
* On sick leave.
[1] Sec. 1. No building, structure, facility, utility, x x x shall be constructed and installed and no improvement thereat within an ECOZONE or any other area owned, administered or operated by PEZA shall be made without the prior written approval or permit issued by the PEZA.
[2] The Special Economic Zone Act of 1995.
[3] Decree creating the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), now PEZA.
[4] Mayon
Estate Corp. v. Altura, G.R. No. 134462,
[5] Reburiano
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102965,