RUBEN S. SIA,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 152921
October 9, 2006
-versus-
ERLINDA
M.
VILLANUEVA,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorariassailing the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated January 7, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63642.
chan robles virtual law library
The instant controversy is an offshoot of
this Court’s Decision dated April 12, 2000 in Villanueva v. Malaya,[2]
which became final and executory on October 16, 2000. Its
factual antecedents, as drawn from the ponencia of
Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, are as follows:cralaw:red
Don Macario Mariano died on November 2, 1971. He left
behind several real properties, including a parcel of land consisting
of 2,154 square meters located in Naga City. Constructed thereon
were an ancestral house and a commercial building.
After Macario’s demise, his surviving spouse, Irene, entered
into a joint venture with Francisco Bautista for the development of a
memorial park. The joint venture failed. Hence, Irene filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Naga City, a complaint
for rescission of contract against Francisco, docketed as Civil Case
No. R-570. After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering the
rescission of the contract. On appeal to the Court of Appeals,
the RTC Decision was affirmed with modification in the sense that Irene
was also ordered to reimburse Francisco the sum of P395,639.84 for
development costs and P155,553.81 for cash advances to the Sto.
Niño Memorial Park, Inc., with 12% interest from the date of the
judgment until fully paid.
chan robles virtual law library
For Irene’s failure to comply with her obligation, the trial
court issued a writ of execution. On November 24, 1986, the
2,154 square meter lot, including the house and building constructed
thereon, was levied on execution.
It appears that as early as April 15, 1975, Irene sold the
lot to one Raul Santos, as shown by a Deed of Sale of the same
date. Thus, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 7261 in the
name of Irene was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 17745 was
issued in the name of Raul Santos.
On June 26, 1988, Irene passed away.
On July 18, 1988, Jose and Erlinda, the legally adopted
children of Macario and Irene, filed with the RTC, Branch 21, Naga
City, a complaint for annulment of the deed of sale executed by and
between Irene and Raul Santos, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-1506.
Going back to Civil Case No. R-570 for rescission of
contract filed by Irene against Francisco, the subject lot was sold by
the sheriff in public auction to Ruben Sia, herein petitioner, being
the highest bidder. On December 12, 1988, the sheriff issued to
him a Provisional Deed of Sale.
Erlinda tried to redeem the property, but Ruben refused to
accept her payment. So Erlinda, through her lawyer,
consigned the redemption price to the trial court. Later, she
sold the lot and its improvements to the lessees and both parties
agreed that the sale shall be effective after she has redeemed the said
lot and its improvements from Ruben.
Meanwhile, on December 2, 1989, Jose died leaving his adoptive sister Erlinda as the sole surviving heir of Macario and Irene.
On December 11, 1989, the sheriff issued a Final Deed of
Sale of the lot in Ruben’s favor. The following day, Ruben filed
an Ex-Parte Motion for cancellation of TCT No. 17745 in the name of
Raul Santos and the issuance, in lieu thereof, of a title in his
name. On December 14, 1989, the trial court issued an Order
canceling TCT No. 17745 and ordering the Register of Deeds of Naga City
to issue a new TCT in Ruben’s name. Pursuant to this Order,
TCT No. 20201 was registered in his name.
chan robles virtual law library
On December 11, 1989, Erlinda filed a "Manifestation for
Perfection of Consignation" in Civil Case No. R-570. The
following day, she also filed with the RTC, Branch 24, Camarines Sur, a
petition for mandamus, docketed as Spec. Proc. No. MC 89-1945, praying
that the sheriff and Ruben be ordered to accept her proferred
redemption money.
On December 14, 1989, the trial court treated Erlinda’s
"Manifestation for Perfection of Consignation" as a motion for
consignation, but denied the same on the ground that a Final Deed of
Sale had already been signed by the sheriff in favor of Ruben.
Erlinda then moved for the cancellation of the Final Deed of
Sale. In two separate Orders, both dated December 18, 1989,
the trial court denied her motion, declaring that the cancellation of
the Final Deed of Sale is a matter that should be threshed out in a
separate proceeding. Likewise, the trial court denied her motion
for reconsideration of the Order dated December 18, 1989.
Erlinda then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On August 13, 1990, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing her petition, thus:cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, the instant
petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and correspondingly, the
preliminary injunction issued on January 23, 1990 is hereby lifted and
dissolved.
Private respondent Sia is hereby declared the rightful and
registered owner of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 20201 of the Register of Deeds of Naga City and is hereby
entitled to the immediate possession thereof. Without costs
in this instance.
SO ORDERED.
Erlinda filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated September 13, 1990.
Erlinda filed with this Court two separate petitions,
docketed as G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281, respectively, assailing
the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 13, 1990.
In G.R. No. 94617, Erlinda and the lessees of the commercial
building assailed the Decision of the Court of Appeals for upholding
the writ of possession issued by the trial court in Ruben’s
favor. The lessees claimed that the writ is void as against them
for it was issued in an ejectment case in which they were not impleaded.
In G.R. No. 95281, Erlinda submitted that the Court of
Appeals erred in holding that she has no right to redeem the subject
lot from Ruben Sia; and in authorizing him to take immediate possession
of the lot in controversy.
On February 18, 1991, G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281 were
consolidated considering that they arose from the same Decision of the
Court of Appeals and that there is no material inconsistency between
the issues raised therein by the parties.
chan robles virtual law library
On April 12, 2000, this Court, through Justice Minerva P,
Gonzaga-Reyes, rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281, the
dispositive portion of which reads:cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 19533 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE,
a new one entered ORDERING the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur to
accept payment of redemption money for the property levied in Civil
Case No. R-570 from petitioner Erlinda Mariano, computed as of November
22, 1989, and upon receipt thereof, to execute and deliver to Erlinda
Mariano a duly accomplished certificate of redemption of said property.
The Definite Deed of Sale issued in favor of private respondent Ruben
Sia and the alias writ of execution issued pursuant to the Order of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 22 of Camarines Sur dated August 28, 1990
are NULLIFIED. Costs against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.
As earlier stated, on October 16, 2000, this Court’s
Decision in G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281 became final and
executory. Erlinda then filed with the trial court a motion
for the issuance of a writ of execution.
On February 28, 2001, the trial court issued an Order granting the writ prayed for, thus:cralaw:red
It appearing that a
Decision, dated April 12, 2000, has been rendered by the Supreme Court
in G.R. No. 94617, entitled Erlinda M. Villanueva v. Hon. Angel Malaya,
et al., and G.R. No. 95281, entitled Erlinda M. Villanueva v. Court of
Appeals, which decision has become final and executory on October 16,
2000, as provided in the Entry of Judgment, issued by said Court, the
Motion for Issuance of Execution, dated February 5, 2001, by Atty.
Manuel M. Rosales, as substantiated by the Compliance dated February
26, 2001 and after consideration of the pleadings filed by Ruben S.
Sia, is GRANTED.
Let the corresponding writ of execution issue for the strict
execution of the Decision dated April 12, 2000, rendered by the Supreme
Court in G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281.
SO ORDERED.
Ruben then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, assailing the Order dated February 28, 2001 of the trial court
directing the issuance of a writ of execution in favor of
Erlinda. On January 7, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its
Decision dismissing his petition.
Ruben filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it in a Resolution dated April 9, 2002.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
The issue for our resolution is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Ruben’s petition for certiorari.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals failed to pass
upon the sole issue being raised before it, i.e., whether Erlinda’s
right to redeem pertains to the entire lot or only to a portion of it.
The Court of Appeals correctly declared that petitioner
pursued the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari
may be availed of only if the lower court or tribunal acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.[3] In Angara v. Fedman Development Corporation,[4] we
explained that:cralaw:red
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of
jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a
tribunal, board, or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect
to the particular proceeding because the conditions which alone
authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are
wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right,
or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either
in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of
power to exercise authority. Grave abuse of discretion implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal
hostility, and it must be so patent or so gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
In the early case of Philippine Trust Co. v. Santamaria,[5]
we ruled that after a final judgment has been rendered by the Supreme
Court, or even by a trial court for that matter, it is the duty of the
court to enforce the judgment according to its terms. In other
words, where the judgment of an appellate court has become final and
executory and is returned to the lower court, the only function of the
latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing
the writ of execution. The Philippine Trust doctrine has
been reaffirmed in Buenaventura v. Garcia and Garcia,[6] Luna v.
Intermediate Appellate Court,[7] and Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun.[8]
In this case, the trial court did not act with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
issued the order of execution in G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281.
It was merely performing its ministerial duty. It could not
do otherwise considering that its Decision has become final and
executory.
We note that the dispositive portion of the Decision in G.R.
Nos. 94617 and 95281 does not state that Erlinda’s right to redeem was
limited only to a portion of the subject lot. If
petitioner indeed felt that the dispositive portion is so vague as to
leave doubt on how it shall be executed, then his proper remedy is not
to file a petition for certiorari, but a motion for
clarification. This is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the contemplation of the law. Verily, his resort to
certiorari under Rule 65 is misplaced.
More than three decades have passed since this legal
wrangling began. It is time to write finis to this
case. In our Decision in G.R. Nos. 94617 and 95281, we
directed the provincial sheriff of Camarines Sur to “accept the payment
of redemption money for the property levied in Civil Case No. R-570
from petitioner Erlinda Mariano.” What is the area of the
property levied? Resort to the record shows that what was
levied upon in Civil Case No. R-570 consists “of a 2,154 square meter
prime land and the ancestral house and commercial building standing
thereon.” Clearly, Erlinda’s right of redemption in G.R.
Nos. 94617 and 95281 applies to the said "2,154 square meter prime land
and the ancestral house and commercial building standing
thereon.” No more, no less.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 7, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63642 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno,
J
., Chairman, Corona, Azcuna, and Garcia,
JJ
., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 75-85. Per Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona with
Associate Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Bernardo P. Abesamis (all
retired) concurring.
[2]
G.R. Nos. 94617 & 95281, 330 SCRA 278.
[3]
Samson v. Rivera, G.R. No. 154355, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 759, 769.
[4]
G.R. No. 156822, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 467.
[5] 53 Phil. 463 (1929).
[6] 78 Phil. 758 (1947).
[7]
G.R. No. 68374, June 18, 1985, 137 SCRA 7.
[8]
G.R. No. 51544, January 13, 1989, 169 SCRA 81.
|