AZUCENA E. BAYANI, VS. EDUARDO, LEONORA, VIRGILIO, VILMA, CYNTHIA AND NANCY, ALL SURNAMED YU AND MR. ALFREDO T. PALLANAN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the motion to implement the writ of demolition against the defendants and oppositors is hereby GRANTED." WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001, an ORDER was issued by the Court, reading as follows: "Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration on the Order dated [M]arch 19, 2001, granting motion for a special order of demolition and the opposition thereto, the Court having found no cogent reason to reconsider or set aside the Order, hereby DENIES the motion. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is very clear on the issues raised in the motion. Since oppositors have not shown any right to the land, they should vacate the same. According to the Court of Appeals, it is not necessary for plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1291 and defendants in Civil Case No. 4647 to file a separate case to eject oppositors. WHEREFORE, the motion is denied." NOW THEREFORE, we command you to demolish the improvements erected by the defendants HEIRS OF JOHN Z. SYCIP xxx, in Civil Case No. 1291, and plaintiffs YARD URBAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., ET AL. in Civil Case No. 4647, on that portion of land belonging to plaintiffs in Civil Case 1291 and defendants Civil Case no. 4647, MELENCIO YU and TALINANAP MATUALAGA, covered by Original Certificate of Title [No.] (V-14496) (P-2331) P-523 in Apopong, General Santos City. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis) By virtue of the 2001 Demolition Order, the provincial sheriff issued notices to vacate addressed to the Heirs of Sycip, YUHAI, and all adverse claimants and actual occupants of the disputed lot," [15] including the Heirs of Non Andres. Prompted by the issuance of the 2001 Demolition Order, the Heirs of Non Andres and YUHAI separately filed in the RTC complaints for quieting of title docketed as Civil Case No. 7066 (Heirs of Non Andres Quieting Case) and Special Civil Case No. 562 (YUHAI Quieting Case), respectively. In the meantime, the RTC directed the sheriff to proceed with the implementation of the 2001 Demolition Order. Thereafter, YUHAI filed a petition for certiorari in the CA to annul the 2001 Demolition Order (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69176). Initially, on March 5, 2002, the CA issued a TRO to enjoin the implementation, thereby effectively deferring the demolition for several years. [16] Ultimately, the CA dismissed YUHAI's petition for certiorari and denied YUHAI's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. Thus, YUHAI appealed the dismissal to this Court, which denied the petition for review on certiorari on September 16, 2009. [17] Inasmuch as the implementation of the 2001 Demolition Order remained pending and incomplete, the Heirs of Yu filed their Motion to Resume and Complete Demolition. In its October 9, 2007 order (2007 Resumption Order), [18] the RTC (Branch 36) granted the motion and directed the provincial sheriff to proceed with and complete the demolition allowed in Civil Case No. 1291 and Civil Case No. 4647, [19] viz: SPECIAL ORDER TO RESUME AND COMPLETE DEMOLITION TO: The Provincial Sheriff