Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Macias et al. vs.

Lim, Leonora, BPI, CSLA June 4, 2004 Facts: Potenciana unto was the owner of lot 1496 in dumaguete. It was inherited by Josefa unto-mendez and late inherited by Ignacio, fructuoso, pio, alfonso all mendez and 1 acknowledged child matias unto. Ignacio died and survived by domingo and Eugenia. Pio died and was inherited by edmundo, apolinario, justiniano, Francisco, conceda, saturnine and pilagia all mendez. The title was in the name of josefa and matias. Domingo sold his share to Eugenia, while Julian sold to Joaquin and Victoriana. Marciano sold to Victoriana and melanio. Francisco and Eugenia thru son, Leonardo sold to matias. The dos not regis, nor annotated. Catalina daughter of alfonso and her siblings Julian, Guillermo, nicasio, gualberto, Leonora, ascension and teopista acquired property through deed of extrajudicial settlement, was registeredtct 2833. Catalina acting in behalf of of siblings executed a real estate mortgage with central savings & loan association (CSLA) as security for a loan of 3,800, it was annotated. Julian mortgage her share also w/ csla for 1k. Plaintiffs( Joaquin & Victoriana) filed for reconveyance and cancellation of tct 2833 before rtcdumaguete covering lot 1496, alleging that they were owners of 5/8 portion of 1486 w/ 13k sqm covered by oct 23 and in actual possession. Plantiffs cased the annotation of the notice of lispendens. Catalina paid her load on csla, however Julian failed and resulted to extrajudicial foreclosure and in favour of csla and was annotated. Court rendered in favour of defendant macias as true owners pf of lot 1496. Plantiffs appealed to IAC. Lot 1496 was subdivided, 1 of which is 1496-B issued in the name of catalina. Then she filed an urgent supplemental motion w/ RTC for cancellation of entry 8465 relating to notice of lispendes. It was granted. Catalina executed a real estate mortgage in favour of BPI, and upon failure to pay it was foreclosed and at a public auction BPI was the highest bidder for 90k. it was annotated. Failure to redeem the title was consolidated to BPI. On june 29, 1984IAC rendered its decision reversing the lower courts decision and declaring catalina co-owners. 6 years thereafter david unto who claim to be heir of plaintiffs submitted the 1984 IAC decision w/ RD dumaguete for enforcement of par 6 (to cancel tct 2714 and 2833 covering lot 1496 and restore oct 23). David failed to surrender owners duplicate of 2833 bec the same was cancelled. Which rd told him it cannot ebe implemented if not surrender of such. CA required parties to file their comment, however they failed to do so and simply noted the Manifestation filed by the RD. 13 years after IAC decision, ascension, rufina, ma Lourdes, alexander and david, alleging to be co-heirs of plaintiff, filed and urgent omnibus petition w/ RTC negros oriental. Praying RD dumaguete to impement the IAC decision, and if refused to be declared in indirect contempt. Also to grant Joaquin and Victoriana a relief or remedy. The court granted the motion. Mariano filed ia manifestation informing he purchased lot 1496-b in goodfaith and movants are guilty of forum shopping. Court delaredlim no personality to intervene as not 1 of the litigants in IAC. Court reconsider its order and denied the motion of the movants as filed beyond 5 years. Denied recon. Movants and 25 others filed a complaint for queting of title, reconveyance and damages, in addition, certiorati and mandamus with CA. which was dimissed. Issue: (a) whether the petitioners have a cause of action against the respondents for the nullification of the Jan 8, 1998 and Apr 7, 1998 Orders of the RTC in Civil Case No. 4823; and, (b) if, in the affirmative, whether the court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the Omnibus Petition of petitioners Asuncion, Rufina, Maria,David and Alexander. Held: Negative.Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2, of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that a petition for prohibition and certiorari may be filed only by the aggrieved party/parties. The person aggrieved referred to in the said sections pertains to one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. If a petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a party in the lower court, he has no standing to question the assailed order. The Court notes that the only movants in the Urgent Omnibus Petition filed in Civil Case No. 4823 were the petitioners Asuncion, Rufina, Ma. Lourdes, Alexander and David, who alleged that they were the co-heirs of the plaintiffs in the said civil case. In their supplemental motion, they prayed that they be substituted as parties-plaintiffs in lieu of the original plaintiffs. However, the trial court failed to resolve the said motion. Neither did the movants (petitioners) reiterate their plea for substitution in their motion for recon of the courts Jan 8, 1998 Order. Neither did they file a petition for mandamus in the CA to compel the RTC to resolve their supplemental motion for their

substitution as parties-plaintiffs, in lieu of the original plaintiffs. The 25 other petitioners in the CA and in this Court never filed any motion for their substitution as parties-plaintiffs before the lower court. It was only in the CA that they alleged, for the first time, that they were heirs of the original plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4823. They were, likewise, unable to show, at least prima facie, that they are the only heirs of the original plaintiffs in the said civil case, both in the appellate court and in this Court. We also note that, although the petitioners alleged in their supplemental motion that Victoriana Unto died on Nov 8, 1989, and that Joaquin Unto died on March 8, 1978, the movants failed to append certified copies of the Certificates of Death of the said plaintiffs, or to adduce proof that the said plaintiffs were already dead, and that they were survived by their heirs, the movants therein, and by the other 14 petitioners in the CAs for that matter. This would have enabled either the appellate or trial court to order the proper substitution, conformably to Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court. The bare allegation of the petitioners that they are the heirs and are co-owners of the property subject of the IAC decision will not suffice. There must be competent preponderant proof that they are, indeed, heirs of the original plaintiffs and co-owners of the property subject of the IAC decision. Absent such evidence, it cannot be argued that the petitioners are the real parties-in-interest, as parties-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4823, as the petitioners in the CA and in this Court. It bears stressing that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a matter of discretion. Where, as in this case, there is no sufficient showing that the petitioners are the real parties-in-interest as petitioners in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, their petition may be dismissed. Generally, once a judgment becomes final and executory, the execution thereof becomes a ministerial duty of the court. The prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right by mere motion within five years from date of entry of the judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision enforced by a mere motion after the lapse of 5 years from the date of its entry, the said judgment is reduced to a mere right of action in favor of the person whom it favors which must be enforced, as are all ordinary actions, by the institution of a complaint in a regular form. Thus, the recourse left for the petitioners is to revive the judgment through an independent action which must be filed within 10 years from the time the judgment became final. The 10year period within which an action for revival of a judgment should be brought, commences to run from the date of finality of the judgment, and not from the expiration of the 5year period within which the judgment may be enforced by mere motion. We have ruled that the running of the five-year period may be interrupted should there be an agreement of the parties to defer or suspend the enforcement of the judgment. However, the petitioners failed to prove in the court a quo that the original parties in Civil Case No. 4823 had any agreement to enforce the IAC decision and that they had already implemented the same. They failed to adduce in evidence any written agreement executed by the parties in the court a quo. Bare allegations, without more, do not meet the quantum of evidence needed to establish the same as a fact. We agree with the following disquisitions of the Court of Appeals: The Untos argument that this case is an exception to the said five year period limitation is untenable. In the first place it is based on bare allegations unsupported by hard evidence. In the absence of sufficient proof, We cannot just accept as is their claims that the interruption or delay in the execution was due to arrangements they have entered into and also that the financial difficulties of the Maciases was a cause for the delay. Assuming hypothetically that the litigants had made arrangements among themselves, this could not have included Par 6 of the dispositive portion which is directed on the RDs and who is the petitioners target for their prayer for compliance and execution. While it is true that Lot No. 1496 was subdivided and that one of the subdivision lots is Lot No. 1496-B covered by TCT No. 9383 under the name of Catalina , the petitioners failed to prove that the subdivision of the property was based on the agreement of the parties in Civil Case No. 4823 to implement the IAC decision. It is incredible that the original parties implemented the IAC decision by causing the subdivision of the property and by taking possession of their respective shares therein, and yet failed to file any motion in the trial court to enforce paragraph 6 of the IAC decision. Even the request of David Unto for the RD to implement paragraph 6 of the IAC decision was made only on Sep 25, 1990, more than six years after the entry of judgment of the IAC decision was made. The plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4823 (the petitioners herein) even failed to file in the CA their Comment on the matter despite the order of the appellate court.