G.R. No. 132250 - ROSALIA P. SALVA AND HER CHILDREN JESUS RAMON SALVA, JOSE ALBERTO SALVA, MELCHOR LEON SALVA, ALFREDO FAUSTO SALVA, JR., MA. TERESITA SALVA YUMANG, MA. ROSALYN SALVA, AND ANTHONY RALFTH SALVA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SIXTEENTH DIVISION) GOVERNOR JOSEPHINE R. SATO. D E C I S I O

Ruling

Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court but voided it with respect to the thirty one (31) defendants, who were found to have never been relocated to the property in question. On March 27, 1995, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal from the foregoing Decision. It was approved by the Regional Trial Court in an Order dated April 3, 1995. The appeal was assigned to the Special Thirteenth Division [12] of the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. UDK-3880-A. For adopting a wrong mode of appeal, however, respondent was rebuffed. Her petition was dismissed pursuant to Section 22, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Circular No. 2-90 [13] in a Resolution [14] dated October 9, 1995. The period for appeal lapsed on January 4, 1996 without respondent filing a Motion for Reconsideration on the foregoing Resolution or seeking its review by this Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Thus, on January 10, 1996, the Court of Appeals ordered that entry of judgment be issued and that the records of that case be returned to the Municipal Trial Court for execution. [15] Entry of judgment was promptly made on January 24,1996. On March 25, 1996, the Municipal Trial Court issued a Writ of Execution for the enforcement of its Decision in Civil Case No. 1425 as affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. [16] On April 24,1998, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. [17] She prayed that the Municipal Trial Court be enjoined from implementing its final and executory Decision in Civil Case No. 1425 and that the same be declared null and void for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 40430. On October 22, 1996, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a Decision [18] dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition for having been filed as a substitute for a lost appeal. It held: "The well-settled rule, buttressed and strengthened by [a] long line of cases, is that certiorari will not lie as substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. Having lost the right to appeal, a party cannot be permitted to avail of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The only exception to this rule is when if [sic] such right is lost through no fault of the party, which is not so in this case. When the case was dismissed by this Court, petitioner did not bother to file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review to the Supreme Court. Petitioner just allowed the period to appeal to lapse. Consequently, this petition must fail for this petition was indeed filed as a substitute for the lost right to appeal." [19] Respondent Court of Appeals went further. It discussed the untenability of respondent's rehashed argument that petitioners did not have prior possession of that portion of the NFA land earmarked as the relocati