In the analogous
case of Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Caceres vs. Heirs of Manuel Abella, represented by MERCEDES N. ABELLA, G.R. No.
143510 November 23, 2005, the sole
issue was “whether or not the final and executory judgment in the case for
quieting of title wherein respondents were adjudged to be the owners of the
subject property is a supervening event that justifies the suspension or
non-enforcement of the final judgment in the previous case for forcible entry”.
In that
case the Petitioner insisted “that the judgment in the quieting of title case should
not be considered as a supervening
event that bars the enforcement of the decision in the forcible entry
case because even if respondents had indeed been finally adjudged to be the
absolute owners of the disputed land, an owner of a property is not necessarily
entitled to possession thereof, such as when the owner leased out the property
to another”. The Supreme Court found the
petition unmeritorious. It stated:
“X x x.
Hence, there can be no other conclusion but that the finality of the
decision in the quieting of title case constitutes a supervening event that
justifies the non-enforcement of the judgment in the forcible entry case. In Natalia Xxxty, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals,11 the Court explained thus:
... The jurisdiction of the court to amend, modify or alter its judgment
terminates when the judgment becomes final. This is the principle of
immutability of final judgment that is subject to only few exceptions, none of which
is present in this case. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the court to
execute its judgment continues even after the judgment has become final for the
purpose of enforcement of judgment.
. . .
One of the exceptions to the principle of immutability of final
judgments is the existence of supervening events. Supervening events refer to
facts which transpire after judgment has become final and
executory or to new circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired finality,
including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the
trial as they were not yet in existence at that time.12
In the case at bar, the new circumstance which developed after the
finality of the judgment in the forcible entry is the fact that the decision in
the case for quieting of title had also attained finality and conclusively
resolved the issue of ownership over the subject land, and the concomitant right
of possession thereof. Verily, to grant execution of the judgment in the
forcible entry case would work injustice on respondents who had been
conclusively declared the owners and rightful possessors of the disputed land.
X x x.”
