Philippine National Bank vs. DKS International
Inc. and Michael Dy
[G.R. No.
179161, 610 SCRA 603, January 22, 2010]
Facts: Considering that the sub-lessee which
was ordered by the court to surrender possession of the disputed property in a
case for forcible entry no longer possessed the same, having already
surrendered possession thereof to the lessor and not to the prevailing party
which is the lessee, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) recalled the Writ of
Execution with Break Open it earlier issued.
Issue: Was the recall proper?
Held: Yes. Before said
writ could be implemented, inescapable material facts and circumstances were
brought to the attention of the RTC. The respondents had already surrendered
possession of the subject premises to the government. Clearly, the portion of the Decision ordering respondents to vacate the
subject property and peacefully surrender possession thereof to petitioner has
become impossible to implement. For how can respondents surrender possession
of the premises when they were no longer in possession? And, as correctly
observed by the RTC, it would be a misstep if the government which is
admittedly the owner of the subject property and which was not a party to the
ejectment case, would be ordered to vacate the same in order that possession
thereof may be delivered to petitioner. We thus hold that under these
circumstances, the recall of the writ of execution with break open order was
warranted.
