Carpio vs. Court of Appeals

A void writ of execution produces no legal effect, and all actions taken pursuant to it are deemed not to have taken place; consequently, the satisfaction of a void writ does not render a pending appeal moot and academic.

In 1978, Macario Carpio demanded that Spouses Oria vacate a 137.45-square-meter portion of his property they allegedly occupied and pay monthly rent. Upon their refusal, an unlawful detainer action was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the dismissal on appeal, but the Court of Appeals (CA) directed the RTC to try the case as an accion publiciana. On remand, the RTC ruled in favor of Carpio, ordering the spouses to vacate and pay rentals and attorney's fees. The RTC subsequently issued an Omnibus Order denying the spouses' motion for reconsideration and granting Carpio's motion for immediate execution pending appeal.

• The Encroachment and MeTC Dismissal: In 1978, Carpio demanded that Spouses Oria vacate the 137.45-square-meter portion of his property they allegedly occupied and pay rent. Following their refusal, Carpio filed an unlawful detainer case in the MeTC, which dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC affirmed the dismissal in toto.
• Remand as Accion Publiciana: On review, the CA directed the RTC to try the case as an accion publiciana under Section 8, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Court. On remand, the RTC found an encroachment of 132 square meters and ordered the spouses to vacate, pay monthly rentals from 1978, and pay attorney's fees and costs.
• Execution Pending Appeal: Carpio moved for immediate execution. The RTC issued an Omnibus Order denying the spouses' motion for reconsideration and simultaneously granting execution pending appeal. The spouses appealed the merits to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 87256) and filed a certiorari petition assailing the execution order (CA-G.R. SP No. 84632).
• Annulment of the Writ: The CA First Division annulled the execution order, finding that the RTC failed to state a good reason for its issuance as required by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The SC denied Carpio's appeal, and the annulment became final on April 4, 2006.
• Implementation of the Void Writ: Despite the annulment, the sheriff had already implemented the writ. The spouses' property was levied, sold at public auction to Carpio as the highest bidder, and a new TCT was issued in Carpio's name.
• Motion to Dismiss Appeal: Carpio filed a manifestation/motion in the pending appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 87256), arguing that the appeal was moot because the judgment had been satisfied via the auction sale. The CA Special Eighth Division denied the motion, ruling that because the execution order was annulled, the decision had not been validly executed. The instant petition followed.

• Validity of Execution: Petitioner argued that the sheriff's implementation of the writ of execution was a ministerial duty that must be respected, relying on Hulst v. P.R. Builders, which held that a sheriff has no discretion to postpone an auction sale.
• Mootness of the Appeal: Petitioner maintained that because the writ of execution had been satisfied—resulting in the levy and auction of the spouses' property, the execution of a Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale, and the issuance of a new TCT in his name—the spouses no longer possessed any proprietary right to protect, rendering the appeal moot and academic.

• Invalidity of the Execution: Respondents countered that the Omnibus Order authorizing the immediate execution had been annulled by the CA and affirmed by the SC, rendering the writ void.
• Pendency of Justiciable Controversy: Respondents argued that the appeal remained viable, as the core issues of encroachment, right to recover possession, and attorney's fees were still unresolved.

• Validity of Actions Under Void Writ: Whether actions taken pursuant to a void writ of execution produce legal effects.
• Mootness: Whether an appeal is rendered moot and academic by the intervening implementation and satisfaction of a writ of execution that was later declared void.

• Validity of Actions Under Void Writ: Actions taken pursuant to a void writ of execution are without legal effect. The reliance on Hulst was misplaced, as that case involved a validly issued writ; here, the writ was void for having been issued without compliance with Section 2, Rule 39. A void writ is treated as if it were never issued, and all proceedings conducted under it are deemed not to have taken place, lest the right to due process of the judgment debtor be violated.
• Mootness: The appeal was not rendered moot and academic. A case is moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, rendering any declaration of no practical value. The satisfaction of a void writ cannot extinguish the justiciable controversy on appeal. Even assuming the writ was valid, execution of a judgment does not automatically moot an appeal, as Section 5, Rule 39 provides for restitution upon reversal of an executed judgment. Substantial issues remain for the CA's resolution, including the fact of encroachment, the right to recover possession, the propriety of monthly rentals, and the award of attorney's fees.

• Void Writ of Execution — A writ of execution issued without compliance with mandatory procedural rules, such as the requirement to state a good reason for execution pending appeal, is void and produces no legal effect. All actions taken pursuant to a void writ are deemed not to have taken place; the satisfaction of such a writ does not clothe it with validity.
• Moot and Academic Case — A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, such that an adjudication would be of no practical value or use, and no actual substantial relief can be granted.

• "Because the writ of execution was manifestly void for having been issued without compliance with the rules, it is without any legal effect. In other words, it is as if no writ was issued at all. Consequently, all actions taken pursuant to the void writ of execution must be deemed to have not been taken and to have had no effect."
• "A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use."

• Hulst v. P.R. Builders, G.R. No. 156364, 3 September 2007 — Distinguished. While the case held that a sheriff's duty to implement a writ is ministerial, it did not rule that actions under an invalidated writ are valid and cannot be undone.
• Osmeña III v. Social Security System of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165272, 13 September 2007 — Followed. Defined the concept of a moot and academic case.
• David v. Judge Velasco, 418 Phil. 643 (2001) — Followed. Held that a void writ produces no legal effect.

• Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court — Governs execution pending appeal, requiring the trial court to state a good reason in a special order before issuing a writ. Applied to annul the RTC's execution order, which failed to state any reason.
• Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court — Provides for restitution or reparation upon reversal or annulment of an executed judgment. Cited to demonstrate that the execution of a judgment does not moot an appeal, as mechanisms exist to restore the status quo upon reversal.
• Section 8, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Court — Allows an RTC to try a case on the merits as if originally filed with it when an MeTC dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed. Applied when the CA remanded the unlawful detainer case to be tried as an accion publiciana.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Bienvenido L. Reyes.