June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173581 : June 16, 2010] SAN MATEO DWELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. ENOR CADELINA, ANTONIO AGONOY, DELIA AGONOY AND SHERIFF JOSE MARTIN:
[G.R. No. 173581 : June 16, 2010]
SAN MATEO DWELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. ENOR CADELINA, ANTONIO AGONOY, DELIA AGONOY AND SHERIFF JOSE MARTIN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 173581 (San Mateo Dwellers Association, Inc. v. Enor Cadelina, Antonio Agonoy, Delia Agonoy and Sheriff Jose Martin).-
This case is about an attempt by a third-party claimant to file an action for injunction to prevent the sheriff from proceeding with the execution of the property which such third party claims as his own even after he had earlier filed an action for quieting of title to recover possession of the same.
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) simultaneously filed five petitions for the reversion to the State of five lots covered by the Santiago, Isabela, Cadastre[1] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela, Branch 19, in Civil Cases 19-438, 19-439, 19-440, 19-441 and 19-442. After hearing, the RTC dismissed the petitions.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 42237, however, the latter (Court rendered a decision on October 27, 1997, reversing that of the RTC and declaring null and void the free patents, original certificates of title, and all subsequent transfer certificates of title issued in the names of the defendants in those cases. The CA also decreed the reversion of the lots to the public domain, subject to the approved homestead application of the intervenors�the heirs of Teodoro Cadelina. Finally, it ordered the defendants to vacate the lots and deliver possession of the same to the heirs mentioned.
Although the CA decision became final and executory on November 19, 1997, it could not be executed because of the efforts of the defendants in the case to stay the same. Finally, on July 26, 2002 the trial court issued an order in Civil Case 19-438, granting the Republic's motion for the issuance of a -writ of demolition against the defendants, their successors-in-interest, and all other persons claiming rights from them.
Among the persons that the trial court ordered ousted by writ of demolition was Moises Paz (Paz), a member of petitioner San Mateo Dwellers Association, Inc. (the Association). On November 11, 2002 or long after the reversion case became final and executory, the Association moved to intervene in it, claiming that the court was ousting Paz from a property that was not part of the litigated cases. RTC Branch 19 denied the intervention.
Separately, the Association filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages in Civil Case 20-1244[2] before Branch 20 of the Cauayan City RTC. After hearing, RTC Branch 20 dismissed this action, prompting the Association to file a motion for reconsideration
Meantime, taking another tack, the Association filed still another complaint before RTC Branch 19 in Civil Case 19-1196, this time for injunction against respondents Sheriff Jose Martin and the others with him to enjoin them from enforcing the writ of demolition in the reversion case. On October 15, 2003 RTC Branch 19 issued an order, dismissing with prejudice the Association's injunction case against the sheriff on the ground of forum shopping, considering that the Association had tried to intervene in the reversion case and filed the separate action for quieting of title that involved the same issues.
As a consequence of the dismissal of its injunction case, the Association filed a special civil action of certiorari before the CA in CA- G.R. SP 80845.[3] The Association claimed that RTC Branch 19 acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its action. On December 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision,[4] dismissing the Association's petition. The CA held that the suit against the sheriff and others was essentially an action to prevent the enforcement of the CA decision in the reversion case based on the Association's claim that it had title over the subject lot. It was barred by res judicata since it involved the same causes of action and relied on the same facts or evidence involved in the reversion case.[5]
The CA also held that the Association failed to show that circumstances existed which would render the execution of the decision in the reversion case unjust, inequitable, and injurious to the Association. The latter sought reconsideration, but the CA denied it on July 12, 2006,[6] hence, the present petition.
The only question presented in this petition is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the Association's injunction suit to stop the sheriff and others with him from enforcing the judgment in the reversion case is baired by res judicata or prior judgment.
The Association insists that res judicata does not apply to the injunction case it filed against the sheriff since such action differs from the reversion case earlier decided by the CA in another case and from the case for quieting of title that the Association earlier filed in Civil Case 20-1244[7] before the RTC Branch 20. The Association claims that it owned the lands affected by the writ of demolition issued in the reversion case, citing the evidence that it intended to adduce in its quieting of title case, which case RTC Branch 20 subsequently reinstated. The Association claims that, since it was not a party in the reversion case, it had a legitimate right to seek judicial relief from the demolition of the houses found in those lands.
The Association is correct in this respect. The settled rule is that the sheriff cannot enforce the judgment of a court on properties that do not belong to the judgment debtor. The sheriff incurs liability who wrongfully levies upon the property of a third person.[8] Stated simply, one man's goods cannot be sold to satisfy another man's debts.[9] Thus, where the property of a third party is subjected to wrongful execution, he is not left without recourse.[10] He can either ask the court that issued the writ to order the sheriff to release the improperly levied property or he can file a separate action against the sheriff for the restoration of the property taken from him plus damages.[11] As a third party not involved in the reversion case, the Association is not barred by the principle of res judicata from filing such an action.
Here, petitioner Association's action for quieting of title and recovery of possession in Civil Case 20-1244 was within the allowable range of remedies available to third-party claimants affected by what they perceive to be a wrongful execution. And, by way of ancillary remedy, the Association could in the meantime apply for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the sheriff to prevent him from taking over possession of the property in dispute.
But rather than do this, the Association filed still another separate action for injunction in Civil Case 19-1196 to enjoin the sheriff and the claimants to the lands from illegally entering the same and demolishing the houses in it under the guise of implementing the CA decision[12] in CA-G.R. SP 42237. As it was, this injunction case filed by the Association sought to litigate anew the issue of ownership of the lands that is at the center of the quieting of title case that it filed in Civil Case 20-1244. The rule on litis pendentia�that a party cannot be allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action�bars the injunction suit.
But petitioner is not left without any remedy. It could, at any stage of the proceedings in the quieting of title case, seek an injunction while the issue of title and ownership is being litigated.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision dated December 29, 2005 and resolution dated July 12, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP 80845. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 173581 (San Mateo Dwellers Association, Inc. v. Enor Cadelina, Antonio Agonoy, Delia Agonoy and Sheriff Jose Martin).-
This case is about an attempt by a third-party claimant to file an action for injunction to prevent the sheriff from proceeding with the execution of the property which such third party claims as his own even after he had earlier filed an action for quieting of title to recover possession of the same.
The Facts and the Case
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) simultaneously filed five petitions for the reversion to the State of five lots covered by the Santiago, Isabela, Cadastre[1] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela, Branch 19, in Civil Cases 19-438, 19-439, 19-440, 19-441 and 19-442. After hearing, the RTC dismissed the petitions.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 42237, however, the latter (Court rendered a decision on October 27, 1997, reversing that of the RTC and declaring null and void the free patents, original certificates of title, and all subsequent transfer certificates of title issued in the names of the defendants in those cases. The CA also decreed the reversion of the lots to the public domain, subject to the approved homestead application of the intervenors�the heirs of Teodoro Cadelina. Finally, it ordered the defendants to vacate the lots and deliver possession of the same to the heirs mentioned.
Although the CA decision became final and executory on November 19, 1997, it could not be executed because of the efforts of the defendants in the case to stay the same. Finally, on July 26, 2002 the trial court issued an order in Civil Case 19-438, granting the Republic's motion for the issuance of a -writ of demolition against the defendants, their successors-in-interest, and all other persons claiming rights from them.
Among the persons that the trial court ordered ousted by writ of demolition was Moises Paz (Paz), a member of petitioner San Mateo Dwellers Association, Inc. (the Association). On November 11, 2002 or long after the reversion case became final and executory, the Association moved to intervene in it, claiming that the court was ousting Paz from a property that was not part of the litigated cases. RTC Branch 19 denied the intervention.
Separately, the Association filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages in Civil Case 20-1244[2] before Branch 20 of the Cauayan City RTC. After hearing, RTC Branch 20 dismissed this action, prompting the Association to file a motion for reconsideration
Meantime, taking another tack, the Association filed still another complaint before RTC Branch 19 in Civil Case 19-1196, this time for injunction against respondents Sheriff Jose Martin and the others with him to enjoin them from enforcing the writ of demolition in the reversion case. On October 15, 2003 RTC Branch 19 issued an order, dismissing with prejudice the Association's injunction case against the sheriff on the ground of forum shopping, considering that the Association had tried to intervene in the reversion case and filed the separate action for quieting of title that involved the same issues.
As a consequence of the dismissal of its injunction case, the Association filed a special civil action of certiorari before the CA in CA- G.R. SP 80845.[3] The Association claimed that RTC Branch 19 acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its action. On December 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision,[4] dismissing the Association's petition. The CA held that the suit against the sheriff and others was essentially an action to prevent the enforcement of the CA decision in the reversion case based on the Association's claim that it had title over the subject lot. It was barred by res judicata since it involved the same causes of action and relied on the same facts or evidence involved in the reversion case.[5]
The CA also held that the Association failed to show that circumstances existed which would render the execution of the decision in the reversion case unjust, inequitable, and injurious to the Association. The latter sought reconsideration, but the CA denied it on July 12, 2006,[6] hence, the present petition.
Question Presented
The only question presented in this petition is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the Association's injunction suit to stop the sheriff and others with him from enforcing the judgment in the reversion case is baired by res judicata or prior judgment.
The Ruling of the Court
The Association insists that res judicata does not apply to the injunction case it filed against the sheriff since such action differs from the reversion case earlier decided by the CA in another case and from the case for quieting of title that the Association earlier filed in Civil Case 20-1244[7] before the RTC Branch 20. The Association claims that it owned the lands affected by the writ of demolition issued in the reversion case, citing the evidence that it intended to adduce in its quieting of title case, which case RTC Branch 20 subsequently reinstated. The Association claims that, since it was not a party in the reversion case, it had a legitimate right to seek judicial relief from the demolition of the houses found in those lands.
The Association is correct in this respect. The settled rule is that the sheriff cannot enforce the judgment of a court on properties that do not belong to the judgment debtor. The sheriff incurs liability who wrongfully levies upon the property of a third person.[8] Stated simply, one man's goods cannot be sold to satisfy another man's debts.[9] Thus, where the property of a third party is subjected to wrongful execution, he is not left without recourse.[10] He can either ask the court that issued the writ to order the sheriff to release the improperly levied property or he can file a separate action against the sheriff for the restoration of the property taken from him plus damages.[11] As a third party not involved in the reversion case, the Association is not barred by the principle of res judicata from filing such an action.
Here, petitioner Association's action for quieting of title and recovery of possession in Civil Case 20-1244 was within the allowable range of remedies available to third-party claimants affected by what they perceive to be a wrongful execution. And, by way of ancillary remedy, the Association could in the meantime apply for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the sheriff to prevent him from taking over possession of the property in dispute.
But rather than do this, the Association filed still another separate action for injunction in Civil Case 19-1196 to enjoin the sheriff and the claimants to the lands from illegally entering the same and demolishing the houses in it under the guise of implementing the CA decision[12] in CA-G.R. SP 42237. As it was, this injunction case filed by the Association sought to litigate anew the issue of ownership of the lands that is at the center of the quieting of title case that it filed in Civil Case 20-1244. The rule on litis pendentia�that a party cannot be allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action�bars the injunction suit.
But petitioner is not left without any remedy. It could, at any stage of the proceedings in the quieting of title case, seek an injunction while the issue of title and ownership is being litigated.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision dated December 29, 2005 and resolution dated July 12, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP 80845. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Or SGS-2-02-001467-D.
[2] Both petitioner and respondents alternately refer to this case as Civil Case 20-1279 as well.
[3] Entitled "San Mateo Dwellers Association, Inc. v. Hon. Raul V. Babaran, Sheriff Jose Martin, Sheriff Rodolfo Tuliao, Antonio Agonoy, Delia Agonoy and Enor Cadelina."
[4] Rollo, pp. 39-50; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador. Then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (retired Supreme Court Justice) and Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman concurred.
[5] Id. at 46-47.
[6] Id. at 52.
[7] Both petitioner and respondents alternately refer to this case as Civil Case 20-1279 as well.
[8] Francisco v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 177667, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 638, 646-647.
[9] Ong v. Tating, 233 Phil. 261, 273 (1987).
[10] Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78771, January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 158, 171.
[11] Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 469, 477 (2002), citing Sy v. Discaya, G.R. No. 86301, January 23, 1990, 181 SCRA 378.
[12] Rollo, p. 26.
