Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Heirs of Manuel Abella, G.R. No. 143510, November 23, 2005.
“X x x.
Hence, the herein petition where the only issue for resolution is 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.
X x x.
The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.
The theory advanced by petitioner from the very beginning is that he is entitled to possession of the disputed property as the owner thereof because the property was transferred to him by virtue of an onerous donation made by respondents. Thus, petitioner’s alleged right of possession is premised on his claim of ownership. He cannot change his theory when the case is on review, by presenting another theory that is inconsistent with his allegations during the proceedings below. Petitioner cannot contradict himself by saying first that respondents had agreed to transfer to him the ownership over the property, only to say later that what respondents granted to him was the right to possess the property. Petitioner is bound by the statements he made while the case was being heard in the lower courts. As held in Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC,[6] to wit:
... The rule is well-settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. ...[7]
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that in a case for ejectment, any finding of the court regarding the issue of ownership is merely provisional and not conclusive. This was stressed in Umpoc vs. Mercado,[8] where the Court stated:
... we emphasize that our disquisition on the issue of ownership in ejectment cases, as in the case at bar, is only provisional to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of ownership, which is the subject matter of a separate case of annulment of title filed by respondent. x x x As the law now stands, in an ejectment suit, the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto. [9]
Thus, the finding in the forcible entry case that petitioner had become the owner and rightful possessor of the disputed property because respondents had donated the property to petitioner is only provisional. It is the ruling in the case for quieting of title, adjudging herein respondents to be the absolute owners of the subject property, which is conclusive. The finding in the case for quieting of title that respondents never consented to petitioner’s occupation of the subject property has now become final and immutable. X x x.
Necessarily, the finding in the case for quieting of title that respondents never agreed to donate the property or to allow petitioner to occupy the subject land prevails over the ruling in the forcible entry case.
The foregoing findings totally foreclose petitioner’s belated claim that even if title over the property remained with respondents, he is nevertheless entitled to possession thereof. Since respondents never made the alleged donation, there is absolutely no legal and factual basis for petitioner to claim the right of possession over it.
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 Realty, 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.
x x x.
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.”
