Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

SPOUSES EULOGIA MANILA and RAMON only the issue of prior physical possession which, in every

MANILA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES EDERLINDA ejectment suit, is the only question to be resolved. As it
GALLARDO-MANZO and DANIEL MANZO, Respondents. were, the respondent court converted the issue to one for
specific performance which falls under its original, not appellate
FACTS: jurisdiction. Sad to say, this cannot be done by the respondent
 The controversy stemmed from an action for ejectment3 court in an appealed ejectment case because the essential
filed by the respondents, spouses Ederlinda Gallardo- criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the
Manzo and Daniel Manzo, against the petitioners, spouses proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create
Ramon and Eulogia Manila, before the Metropolitan Trial that cause. It follows that the respondent Regional Trial Court
Court (MeTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 79 (Civil Case No. clearly acted without jurisdiction when it ordered the petitioners
3537). The facts as summarized by the said court are as to sell their properties to the private respondents. The order to
follows: sell can be made only by the respondent court in an action for
 “On June 30, 1982, Ederlinda Gallardo leased 2 parcels of specific performance under its exclusive original jurisdiction, and
land situated along Real St., Manuyo, Las Piñas, Metro not in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in an appealed
Manila, to Eulogia Manila for a period of 10 years at a ejectment suit, as in this case. Worse, the relief granted by the
monthly rental(s) of P2,000.00 for the first two years, and same court was not even prayed for by the private respondents
thereafter an increase of 10 percent every after two years. in their Answer and position paper before the MTC, whereat they
They also agreed that the lessee shall have the option to only asked for the dismissal of the complaint filed against them.
buy the property within 2 years from the date of execution
of the contract of lease at a fair market value of P150,000.00 ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
The contract of lease expired on July 1, 1992 but the lessee A GRAVE ERROR IN ANNULLING THE JUDGMENT BY THE
continued in possession of the property despite a formal REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY ON THE
demand letter dated August 8, 1992, to vacate the same GROUND OF “LACK OF JURISDICTION” WHEN IT HAS NOT
and pay the rental arrearages. In a letter reply dated August BEEN SHOWN THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
12, 1992, herein defendant claimed that no rental fee is due MAKATI CITY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
because she allegedly became the owner of the property at OF THE RESPONDENTS OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
the time she communicated to the plaintiff her desire to THE CLAIM.
exercise the option to buy the said property.
RULING: The petition is meritorious.
MTC: rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a
RTC: Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of
Makati City, Branch 63 (Civil Case No. 93-3733) which reversed where “the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
the MeTC. The RTC found that petitioners have in fact exercised for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
their option to buy the leased property but the respondents available through no fault of the petitioner.” It is a remedy
refused to honor the same. granted only under exceptional circumstances and such
 It noted that respondents even informed the petitioners action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party’s own
about foreclosure proceedings on their property, neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other
whereupon the petitioners tried to intervene by tendering appropriate remedies.13 The only grounds provided in Sec.
rental payments but the respondents advised them to 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
withhold such payments until the appeal of respondents in
the case they filed against the Rural Bank of Bombon  In this case, respondents alleged that the loss of remedies
(Camarines Sur), Inc. (Civil Case No. 6062) is resolved. against the RTC decision was attributable to their former
 It further noted that respondents’ intention to sell the lot to counsel’s late filing of their motion for reconsideration and
petitioners is confirmed by the fact that the former allowed failure to file any proper petition to set aside the said
the latter to construct a building of strong materials on the decision. They claimed that they had been constantly
premises. following up the status of the case with their counsel, Atty.
 Respondents filed an appeal before the CA. Jose Atienza, who repeatedly assured them he was on top
of the situation and would even get angry if repeatedly
CA: The CA granted the petition, annulled the November 18, asked about the case. Out of their long and close
1994 RTC decision and reinstated the July 14, 1993 MeTC relationship with Atty. Atienza and due regard for his poor
decision. On the issue of lack of jurisdiction raised by the health due to his numerous and chronic illnesses which
respondents, the CA ruled as follows: required frequent prolonged confinement at the hospital,
respondents likewise desisted from hiring the services of
“It must be stressed that the main action before the Metropolitan another lawyer to assist Atty. Atienza, until the latter’s death
Trial Court is one for ejectment grounded on the expiration of on September 10, 1998. Thus, it was only on November
the parties’ contract of lease. And said court, finding that 1998 that respondents engaged the services of their new
petitioners have a valid right to ask for the ejectment of private counsel who filed the petition for annulment of judgment in
respondents, ordered the latter to vacate the premises and to the CA.
pay their rentals in arrears. To Our mind, what the respondent
court should have done in the exercise of its appellate  Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment
jurisdiction, was to confine itself to the issue of whether or not refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioners have a valid cause of action for ejectment against the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.16 In
private respondents. Unfortunately, in the decision herein a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
sought to be annulled, the respondent court went further than jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of
what is required of it as an appellate court when it ordered the jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction.
petitioners to sell their properties to the private respondents.In a Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that
very real sense, the respondent court materially changed the is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the
nature of petitioners’ cause of action by deciding the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction
question of ownership even as the appealed case involves over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the
action or subject matter is conferred by law. There is no for Annulment of Judgment filed by the respondents
dispute that the RTC is vested with appellate jurisdiction seeking to nullify that portion of the Decision of the
over ejectment cases decided by the MeTC, MTC or MCTC (RTC), Valenzuela City awarding petitioner 5%
monthly interest rate for the principal amount of the
 While the Court in an ejectment case may delve on the loan respondents obtained from her.
issue of ownership or possession de jure solely for the  On March 2, 1991, respondents obtained a loan of
purpose of resolving the issue of possession de facto, it has P45K from petitioner payable in 6 months and secured
no jurisdiction to settle with finality the issue of ownership19 by a Real Estate Mortgage over their 202-sqm property
and any pronouncement made by it on the question of located in Valenzuela and covered by TCT.‚When the
ownership is provisional in nature.20 A judgment in a debt became due, respondents failed to pay
forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue notwithstanding demand. Thus, petitioner filed with the
than possession and establishes only who has the right of RTC a Complaint on September 17, 1999.
possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action  Respondents were served with summons thru
for determination of who has the right or title of ownership. respondent Sonny A. Balangue. On October 15, 1999,
We have held that although it was proper for the RTC, on with the assistance of (Atty. Coroza) of the PAO, they
appeal in the ejectment suit, to delve on the issue of filed a Motion to Extend Period to Answer but
ownership and receive evidence on possession de jure, it respondents failed to file any. RTC declared them in
cannot adjudicate with semblance of finality the ownership default and allowed petitioner to present her evidence
of the property to either party by ordering the cancellation ex parte. RTC granted petitioner's Complaint.
of the TCT. In this case, the RTC acted in excess of its  Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution alleging that
jurisdiction in deciding the appeal of respondents when, respondents did not interpose a timely appeal. Before
instead of simply dismissing the complaint and awarding it could be resolved, however, respondents filed a
any counterclaim for costs due to the defendants Motion to Set Aside Judgment dated January 26, 2001,
(petitioners), it ordered the respondents-lessors to execute claiming that not all of them were duly served with
a deed of absolute sale in favor of the petitioners-lessees, summons. They had no knowledge of the case
on the basis of its own interpretation of the Contract of because their co-respondent Sonny did not inform
Lease which granted petitioners the option to buy the them.
leased premises within a certain period (two years from  But on March 16, 2001, the RTC ordered the issuance
date of execution) and for a fixed price (P150,000.00). This of a Writ of Execution to implement its October 17,
cannot be done in an ejectment case where the only issue 2000 Decision. However, since the writ could not be
for resolution is who between the parties is entitled to the satisfied, petitioner moved for the public auction of the
physical possession of the property. mortgaged property, which the RTC granted. In an
auction sale conducted on November 7, 2001,
 Such erroneous grant of relief to the defendants on appeal, petitioner was the only bidder in the amount of P420k.
however, is but an exercise of jurisdiction by the RTC. Thus, a Certificate of Sale was issued and accordingly
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. annotated.
As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction,  Respondents then filed a Motion to Correct/Amend
jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the Judgment and To Set Aside Execution Sale, claiming
decision rendered therein.24 The ground for annulment of that the parties did not agree in writing on any rate of
the decision is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the interest and that petitioner merely sought for a 12% per
court should not have taken cognizance of the petition annum interest in her Complaint. RTC awarded 5%
because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the monthly interest (or 60% per annum). Their
subject matter. indebtedness inclusive of the exorbitant interest
ballooned to P652,000.00. RTC granted respondents'
 On the timeliness of the petition for annulment of judgment motion and accordingly modified the interest rate
filed with the CA, Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court awarded to 12% per annum. Then respondents filed
provides that a petition for annulment of judgment based on a Motion for Leave To Deposit/Consign Judgment
extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its Obligation in the total amount of P126,650.00.
discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is  Displeased with the RTC's May 7, 2002 Order,
barred by laches or estoppel. The principle of laches or petitioner elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition
“stale demands” ordains that the failure or neglect, for an for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. CA
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that rendered a Decision declaring that the RTC exceeded
which by exercising due diligence could or should have its jurisdiction in awarding the 5% monthly interest but
been done earlier—negligence or omission to assert a right at the same time pronouncing that the RTC gravely
within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the abused its discretion in subsequently reducing the rate
party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to of interest to 12% per annum. In so ruling, the CA
assert it. ratiocinated: Indeed, We are convinced that the Trial
Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted 5%
DIONA, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, monthly interest instead of the 12% per annum prayed
MARCELINA DIONA v. BALANGUE, ET AL. for in the complaint. However, the proper remedy is not
to amend the judgment but to declare that portion as a
The grant of a relief neither sought by the party in whose favor it nullity.
was given nor supported by the evidence presented violates the
opposing party's right to due process and may be declared ISSUES:
void ab initio in a proper proceeding. I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR OF
FACTS: LAW WHEN IT GRANTED RESPONDENTS'
 This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT AS A
Resolution of (CA) issued which granted the Petition
SUBSTITUTE OR ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF A default than of a defendant who participated in trial. For
LOST APPEAL. instance, amendment to conform to the evidence presented
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS during trial is allowed the parties under the Rules. But the
COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR AND same is not feasible when the defendant is declared in
MISAPPREHENSION OF LAW AND THE FACTS default because Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
WHEN IT GRANTED RESPONDENTS' PETITION comes into play and limits the relief that may be granted by
FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OF THE the courts to what has been prayed for in the Complaint. It
DECISION OF THE RTC, DESPITE THE FACT THAT provides: (d) Extent of relief to be awarded. - A judgment
SAID DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL AND rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the
ALREADY EXECUTED CONTRARY TO THE amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award
DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT. unliquidated damages
½l1  The raison d' Etre in limiting the extent of relief that may be
HELD: The petition must fail. granted is that it cannot be presumed that the defendant
would not file an Answer and allow himself to be declared
 We agree with respondents that the award of 5% in default had he known that the plaintiff will be accorded a
monthly interest violated their right to due process and, relief greater than or different in kind from that sought in the
hence, the same may be set aside in a Petition for Complaint. No doubt, the reason behind Section 3(d),
Annulment of Judgment filed under Rule 47 of the Rule 9 of the Rules of Court is to safeguard defendant's
Rules of Court. right to due process against unforeseen and arbitrarily
issued judgment. This, to the mind of this Court, is akin to
Annulment of judgment under Rule 47; the very essence of due process. It embodies "the sporting
an exception to the final judgment rule; idea of fair play and forbids the grant of relief on matters
grounds therefor where the defendant was not given the opportunity to be
 A Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the heard thereon
Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional
circumstances where a party, without fault on his part, has  In the case at bench, the award of 5% monthly interest rate
failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, is not supported both by the allegations in the pleadings and
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. Said rule the evidence on record. The Real Estate Mortgage
explicitly provides that it is not available as a substitute for executed by the parties does not include any provision on
a remedy which was lost due to the party's own neglect in interest. When petitioner filed her Complaint before the
promptly availing of the same. "The underlying reason is RTC, she alleged that respondents borrowed from her "the
traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes sum of P45, 000.00, with interest thereon at the rate of
against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end 12% per annum‚ and sought payment thereof. She did not
and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential allege or pray for the disputed 5% monthly interest. Neither
to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment did she present evidence nor testified thereon. Clearly, the
has become final, the issue or cause involved therein RTC's award of 5% monthly interest or 60% per annum
should be laid to rest lacks basis and disregards due process. It violated the
 While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a due process requirement because respondents were
Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be based only on not informed of the possibility that the RTC may award
the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, 5% monthly interest. They were deprived of reasonable
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional opportunity to refute and present controverting evidence as
ground to annul a judgment. In Arcelona v. Court of they were made to believe that the complainant [petitioner]
Appeals, this Court declared that a final and executory was seeking for what she merely stated in her Complaint
judgment may still be set aside if, upon mere inspection  Neither can the grant of the 5% monthly interest be
thereof, its patent nullity can be shown for having been considered subsumed by petitioner's general prayer for
issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law. "[o]ther reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the
premises. To repeat, the court's grant of relief is limited only
Grant of 5% monthly interest is way beyond to what has been prayed for in the Complaint or related
the 12% per annum interest sought in the thereto, supported by evidence, and covered by the party's
Complaint and smacks of violation of due process. cause of action. Besides, even assuming that the awarded
 It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed 5% monthly or 60% per annum interest was properly
for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought alleged and proven during trial, the same remains
by the party. They cannot also grant a relief without first unconscionably excessive and ought to be equitably
ascertaining the evidence presented in support reduced in accordance with applicable
thereof. Due process considerations require that jurisprudence. In Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma, this Court held: In
judgments must conform to and be supported by the the case of Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, citing the cases
pleadings and evidence presented in of Medel v. Court of Appeals, Garcia v. Court of Appeals,
court. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston, Spouses Bautista v. Pilar Development Corporation and the
this Court expounded that: Due process considerations recent case of Spouses Solangon v. Salazar, this Court
justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order considered the 3% interest per month or 36% interest per
which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, annum as excessive and unconscionable. Thereby, the
absent notice which affords the opposing party an Court, in the said case, equitably reduced the rate of
opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. interest to 1% interest per month or 12% interest per annum
The fundamental purpose of the requirement that  It is understandable for the respondents not to contest the
allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of default order for, as alleged in their Comment, "it is not their
recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant intention to impugn or run away from their just and valid
obligation. Nonetheless, their waiver to present evidence
 Notably, the Rules is even more strict in safeguarding the should never be construed as waiver to contest patently
right to due process of a defendant who was declared in
erroneous award which already transgresses their right to trial and remanded it back to the said lower court, does the
due process, as well as applicable jurisprudence. proceeding in the lower court merely requires presentation
of evidence by Buaya alone without requiring Stronghold to
Respondents' former counsel was grossly present its evidence for cross examination by Buaya.
negligent in handling the case of his clients; RULING:
respondents did not lose ordinary remedies 1) On annulled decision, the court correct that the CA did not
of new trial, petition for relief, etc. through annulled the lower court’s decision but merely set aside to
their own fault. allow petitioner to present his evidence. There is nothing
 Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence wrong when the court reinstated its decision after failure of
of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that petitioner to present evidence despite the ample time given
any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his for him to do so. It is also required for the petitioner to attach
general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his an authentic copy of the original decision to support his
client. A recognized exception to the rule is when the claim that the CA annulled the lower court’s decision.
lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to maintain Failure to comply said requirement is a ground for dismissal
their client's cause and such amounted to a deprivation of petition.
of their client's property without due process of law. In 2) On final and executory judgment, it becomes the law of the
which case, the courts must step in and accord relief to case regardless of claims that it is erroneous. Final
a client who suffered thereby. ½l½l1 judgments are decisions rendered by court with competent
 "A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, jurisdiction acting within its authority and its judgment
warmth and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his cannot be altered even at risk of occasional legal infirmities
rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to of errors it may contain. Litigation must end sometime and
the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client somewhere. In view of efficient and effective administration
except in accordance with the law. Judging from how of judgment once a decision has become final, the
respondents' former counsel handled the cause of his prevailing party should not be deprived of the favorable
clients, there is no doubt that he was grossly negligent in judgment rendered upon them on suits involving the same
protecting their rights, to the extent that they were deprived issues and parties.
of their property without due process of law VLASON ENTERPRISES VS. CA
 In fine, respondents did not lose the remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief and other remedies through their FACTS:
own fault. It can only be attributed to the gross negligence  Ruling that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become
of their erstwhile counsel which prevented them from final and executory, the Court of Appeals ordered the
pursuing such remedies. We cannot also blame Regional Trial Court to take appropriate action on the
respondents for relying too much on their former urgent ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of execution
counsel. Clients have reasonable expectations that their filed by private respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Regional
lawyer would amply protect their interest during the trial of Trial Court of Manila issued a writ of possession thus
the case. Here, "[r]espondents are plain and ordinary placing private respondent in possession of petitioner's
people who are totally ignorant of the intricacies and barge Lawin. Hence, this petition
technicalities of law and legal procedures. Being so, they  The case filed by private respondent with the trial court
completely relied upon and trusted their former counsel to involved multiple defendants. Several defendants entered
appropriately act as their interest may lawfully warrant and into a compromise agreement with private respondent. A
require. compromise agreement is immediately final and executory.
 As a final word, it is worth noting that respondents' principal As to these defendants therefore, the trial court Decision
obligation was only P45,000.00. Due to their former had become final. Nevertheless, said decision cannot be
counsel's gross negligence in handling their cause, coupled said to have attained finality as to petitioner, which was not
with the RTC's erroneous, baseless, and illegal award of 5% a party to the compromise. Moreover, petitioner filed a
monthly interest, they now stand to lose their property and Motion for Reconsideration two days before the lapse of the
still owe petitioner a large amount of money. reglementary period to appeal. Execution shall issue as
matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal if
no appeal has been duly perfected.
BUAYA V STRONGHOLD
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the
Stronghold filed a case against Buaya who is the manager of petitioner in this case.
its Cebu branch for recovery of un-remitted collection of money.
The lower court ruled on Stronghold’s favor. Buaya appealed RULING:
before the CA which ruled in his favor remanding the case back  NO. The sheriff's return showed that the president of
to the lower court. Subsequent hearings were set with failure of petitioner corporation was served summons through his
Buaya and his counsel to appear many times until Stronghold secretary. A summons addressed to a corporation and
filed a petition to reinstate the previous decision of the court. The served on the secretary of the President binds that
court decision becomes final and executory and it denied all corporation. The secretary however, should be an
other appeals made before it. Buaya thus herein files a motion employee of the corporation sought to be summoned. In the
for certiorari. case at bar, the secretary was not an employee of petitioner
but of Vlasons Shipping, Inc.
ISSUE:
1) Can a decision from the lower court that is annulled by the  Acting under the impression that petitioner had been placed
appellate court be reinstated by the same court that under its jurisdiction, the trial court dispensed with the
rendered the decision; service on petitioner of new summons for the subsequent
2) When the appellate court annuls the decision of the lower amendments of the petition. But the first service of
court on grounds of failure to give notice to Buaya at pre- summons on petitioner was invalid. Thus, the trial court
never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Not having an action upon a judgment must be brought
been validly served summons, it would be legally either in the same court where said judgment
impossible to declare petitioner to be in default. A default was rendered or in the place where the
judgment cannot affect the rights of a party who was never plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other
declared in default. place designated by the statutes which
treat of the venue of actions in general.
PALLADA VS RTC OF KALIBO
 It must be noted that other provisions in the rules of
(NONE) procedure which fix the venue of actions in general must
be considered.
 Under the present Rules of Court, Sections 1 and 2 of Rule
ADELAIDA INFANTE VS. ARAN BUILDERS INC. 4 provide:
AUGUST 24, 2007 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
FACTS: commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion
 Before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, presided over by Judge thereof, is situated.
Perello was an action for revival of judgment filed on June Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other actions may be
6, 2001 by Aran Builders, Inc. against Adelaida Infante commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
 The judgment sought to be revived was rendered by plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
the RTC of Makati City in an action for specific defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant
performance and damages, where it ruled in favor of R and where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff
ordered P to execute a deed of sale of a lot in Ayala  Thus, the proper venue depends on the determination of
Alabang, to register the said deed and deliver title to R, and whether the present action for revival of judgment is a real
to pay the taxes of the said lot. The same judgment ordered action or a personal action.
R to pay P the sum of P321,918.25 upon P's compliance  P cites the case of Aldeguer to support her claim but
with the aforementioned order. R sought to revive the misunderstood the doctrine to mean that any action for
judgment since P refused to comply to the court’s order revival of judgment should be considered as a personal
 P filed a motion to dismiss the action for revival of judgment one. The Court specified that the judgment sought to be
on the grounds that the Muntinlupa RTC has no jurisdiction revived in said case was a judgment for damages. The
over the persons of the parties and that venue was judgment subject of the action for revival did not involve or
improperly laid. R opposed the motion. affect any title to or possession of real property or any
interest therein. P also cited the case of Donnelly, but the
Muntinlupa RTC: denied P’s MTD. Stating that the reason that judgment to be revived in the said case was for a collection
the case to be revived was heard in the Makati RTC was only of a sum money which is a personal action. Clearly, the
because there was still no RTC in Muntinlupa City. With the Court's classification in Aldeguer and Donnelly of the
creation of the RTCs of Muntinlupa City, matters involving actions for revival of judgment as being personal in
properties located in this City, and cases character does not apply to the present case
involving Muntinlupa City residents were all ordered to be  The allegations in the complaint for revival of judgment
litigated before these Courts. Since the subject lot of the case to determine whether it is a real action or a personal action.
be revived is located in Muntinlupa City, RTC of Muntinlupa is  The previous judgment has conclusively declared private
the correct venue. respondent's right to have the title over the disputed
property conveyed to it. It is, therefore, undeniable that R
P appealed to the CA and asserts that the complaint for specific has an established interest over the lot in
performance and damages before the Makati RTC is an action question; and to protect such right or interest, private
in personam and, therefore, the suit to revive the judgment respondent brought suit to revive the previous
therein is also personal in nature; and that, consequently, the judgment. The sole reason for the present action to
venue of the action for revival of judgment is either Makati City revive is the enforcement of private respondent's
or Parañaque City where private respondent and petitioner adjudged rights over a piece of realty. Verily, the
respectively reside, at the election of private respondent. action falls under the category of a real action, for it
affects private respondent's interest over real
CA: held that since the judgment sought to be revived was property.
rendered in an action involving title to or possession of real  The present case for revival of judgment being a real
property, or interest therein, the action for revival of judgment action, the complaint should indeed be filed with the
is then an action in rem which should be filed with the RTC of Regional Trial Court of the place where the realty is
the place where the real property is located. located.
- According to Sec.18 of BP129, the Supreme Court
ISSUES: shall define the territory over which a branch of the
1) WON the revival of judgment is a real action- YES Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The
2) WoN Muntinlupa RTC is the correct venue for the revival of territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the
judgment rendered by Makati RTC- YES territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes
RULING: of determining the venue of all suits
 Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure - Originally, Muntinlupa City was under the territorial
provides that after the lapse of 5 years from entry of jurisdiction of the Makati Courts. However, Section 4
judgment and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, of RA No. 7154, entitled An Act to Amend Section
a final and executory judgment or order may be enforced by Fourteen of BP 129, Otherwise Known As The
action. The Rule does not specify in which court the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981, took effect on
action for revival of judgment should be filed. September 4, 1991. Said law provided for the
creation of a branch of the RTC in Muntinlupa. Thus,
 In Aldeguer v. Gemelo, the Court held that:
it is now the RTC in Muntinlupa City which has
territorial jurisdiction or authority to validly issue  As for Ting‘s claim that under Section 6, Rule 39 of the
orders and processes concerning real property Rules of Court reading: SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by
within Muntinlupa City. independent action. – A final and executory judgment or
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from
Decision dated August 12, 2002 and Resolution dated January the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before
7, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may
be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also
be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of
ROLANDO TING v. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIRIO its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the
statute of limitations, the December 10, 1976 decision
FACTS: became “extinct” in light of the failure of respondents and/or
 In a decision in 1976, CFI granted the application filed by of their predecessors-in-interest to execute the same within
the Lirio spouses for registration of title to a certain lo the prescriptive period, the same does not lie.
 The said decision become final and executor in 197  Authority for this theory is the provision in the Rules of Court
 In 1982, the judge of CFI directed the Land Registration to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5
Commission to issue the corresponding decree of years by motion, and after five years but within 10 years, by
registration and the certificate of title in favor of the spouses an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules
Lirio refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special
 On Febraury 12, 1997, Petitioner Ting filed an application proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so
to register title to the same lot with the RTC of Ceb because a party in a civil action must
 The respondents, heirs of Lirio, filed their Answer calling immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against
attention to the 1976 decision which had become final and the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same
executor in 1977 and which, they argued, barred the filing within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes
of Ting’s application on the ground of res judicata the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In
RTC dismissed petitioner’s application on the ground of res special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status,
judicata condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the
ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be
 Petitioner argues that although the 1976 decision had established. After the ownership has been proved and
become final and executor in 1977, no decree of registration confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding
has been issued by the Land Registration Authority to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when
the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the
 Petitioner contends that the LRA has not issued the decree
land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
of registration and that a certain Engr. Rafaela Belleza
claimed that the survey of the Cebu Cadastral Extension is
erroneous and all resurvey within the Cebu Cadastral
extension must first be approved by the Land Management RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner,
Services of the DENR, Region 7, Cebu City before said vs. FEDERICO A. SERRA, respondent.
resurvey may be used in court
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not the application for land registration should be  Respondent Federico A. Serra (Serra) is the owner of a 374
barred for being res judicata square meter parcel of land located along Quezon Street,
Masbate, Masbate.
RULING:  On 20 May 1975, Serra and petitioner Rizal Commercial
 In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of Banking Corporation (RCBC) entered into a Contract of
a private land, with or without opposition, the judgment of Lease with Option to Buy, wherein Serra agreed to lease
the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, his land to RCBC for 25 years. Serra further granted RCBC
as the case may be, and ordering its registration in his name the option to buy the land and improvement (property)
constitutes, when final, res judicata against the whole world. within 10 years from the signing of the Contract of Lease
It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary with Option to Buy
period is taken from a judgment of confirmation and  On 4 September 1984, RCBC informed Serra of its decision
registration. The land registration proceedings being in rem, to exercise its option to buy the property. However, Serra
the land registration court‘s approval in LRC No. N-983 of replied that he was no longer interested in selling the
spouses Diego Lirio and Flora Atienza‘s application for property.
registration of the lot settled its ownership, and is binding on  On 14 March 1985, RCBC filed a Complaint for Specific
the whole world including Ting. Performance andDamages against Serra (Specific
 Ting insists that the duty of the respondent land registration Performance case) in the RTC Makati.
officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial. It is The RTC Makati initially dismissed the complaint. However, in
ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the an Order dated 5 January 1989, the RTC Makati reversed itself
court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision and ordered Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale
of the court and with the data found in the record, and they in favor of RCBC.
have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in
doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation Serra appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter  On 18 May 1989, Serra donated the property to his mother,
to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court Leonida Ablao (Ablao)
and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of  On 20 April 1992, Ablao sold the property to Hermanito Liok
the court. They are specifically called upon to “extend (Liok). A new land title was issued in favor of Liok. Thus,
assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land RCBC filed a Complaint for Nullification of Deed of Donation
registration proceedings.” and Deed of Sale with Reconveyance and Damages
against Liok, Ablao andSerra (Annulment case) before the
RTC of Masbate City (RTC Masbate).  This Court, however, allows exceptions when execution
CA, and later the Supreme Court, affirmed the order of the may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years.
RTC Makati in the Specific Performance case. In a These exceptions have one common denominator: the
Decision dated 4 January 1994, this Court declared that the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment
Contract of Lease with Option to Buy was valid, effective, and obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
enforceable.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the purpose of
 On 15 April 1994, the decision in the Specific Performance prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments is to
case became final and executory upon entry of judgment. prevent parties from sleeping on their rights.
 On 22 October 2001, the RTC Masbate ruled in favor of  Far from sleeping on its rights, RCBC has pursued
RCBC, declaring the donation in favor of Ablao and the persistently its action against Serra in accordance with law.
subsequent sale to Liok null and void.  On the other hand, Serra has continued to evade his
obligation by raising issues of technicality. While strict
CA affirmed the RTC Masbate decision. compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal
 The CA held that the donation to Ablao was simulated and interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict
was done solely to evade Serra’s obligation to RCBC. Since enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice.
Ablao had no right to transfer the property and Liok was not
a buyer in good faith, the subsequent sale to Liok was VILLARIN VS MUNASQUE
likewise null and void FACTS:
 Thus, Liok filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, docketed  The case stemmed from a complaint for collection of
as G.R. No. 182478, while Serra and Ablao filed a Petition sum of money filed by “R” against the “P” and their “co-
for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 182664, before this def” before the RTC Makati;
Court. In separate Resolutions dated 30 June 2008 and 22  Before the answer to the complaint be filed the parties
October 2008, which became final and executory on 27 agreed into a compromise agreement wherein they
August 2008 and 3 March 2009, respectively, this Court acknowledged their joint and solidary obligation =
found neither reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion assigned real estate mortgage executed by “P” in favor
on the CA’s part. of “R”;
 On 25 August 2011, RCBC moved for the execution of the  On even date, the parties jointly filed before the RTC a
decision in the Specific Performance case. RCBC alleged motion for the approval of the Comp.Agree. = granted;
that it waslegally impossible to ask for the execution of the  A writ of execution was issued and the sheriff, issued a
decision prior to the annulment of the fraudulent transfers notice of levy and had the same annotated at the back
made by Serra. Thus, the period to execute by motion was of 34 TcT’s;
suspended during the pendency of the Annulment case. On  On the same day another levy was issued against all
22 September 2011, Serra filed his comment and the rights and interests of “P” on a piece of land in the
opposition to the motion. Serra insisted that the motion for name of the “P”;
execution was already barred by prescription and laches,  On Nov. 8, 2002 Sheriff issued notice of deputy
and that RCBC was at fault for failing to register as lien in sheriff’s sale on execution relative to the levied
the original title the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. properties;
 In an Order dated 16 February 2012, the RTC Makati
denied RCBC’s motion for execution. The RTC Makati ISSUE: WON the sheriff complied w/ rule 39 sec 9
opined that “[RCBC] should have asked for the execution of
the deed of sale and have the same registered with the RULING: NO.
Registry of Deeds, so that even if [Serra] sold or transferred  The sheriff is required to first demand of the judgment
the subject property to any person the principle of caveat
obligor the immediate payment of the full amount
emptor would set in.”9
 In an Order dated 26 July 2012, the RTC Makati denied stated in the writ of execution before a levy can be
RCBC’s motion for reconsideration. Thus, RCBC filed this made. The sheriff shall demand such payment either in
petition. In a Resolution dated 3 December 2012, this Court cash, certified bank check or any other mode of
granted RCBC’s Temporary Restraining Order against the payment acceptable to the judgment obligee. If the
implementation of the questioned Orders upon RCBC’s judgment obligor cannot pay by these methods
filing of a bond. immediately or at once, he can exercise his option to
choose which of his properties can be levied upon. If
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER RCBC IS BARRED FROM he does not exercise this option immediately or when
HAVING ITS 05 JANUARY 1989 DECISION EXECUTED he is absent or cannot be located, he waives such right,
THROUGH MOTION, CONSIDERING THAT UNDER THE and the sheriff can now first levy his personal
CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THIS CASE, RCBC WAS properties, if any, and then the real properties if the
UNLAWFULLY PREVENTED BY THE RESPONDENT FROM personal properties are insufficient to answer for the
ENFORCING THE SAID DECISION judgment. Subsection (a) of Section 9, Rule 39 was
taken from Section 15, Rule 39 of the 1964 Rules of
RULING:
 The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory Court which provided that execution of money
judgment may be executed by motion within five years from judgments is enforced by “levying on all the property,
the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five real and personal of every name and nature
years and before prescription sets in.—The Rules of Court whatsoever, and which may be disposed of for value,
provide that a final and executory judgment may be of the judgment debtor not exempt from execution, or
executed by motion within five years from the date of its on a sufficient amount of such property, if there be
entry or by an action after the lapse of five years and before
sufficient, and selling the same, and paying to the
prescription sets in.
judgment creditor, or his attorney, so much of the
proceeds as will satisfy the judgment.” The former rule
directed the execution of a money judgment against the
property of the judgment debtor.

LEACHON VS PASCUA
(NONE)

SPOUSES VERSOLA VS CA
(NONE)

Вам также может понравиться