Planas v. Madrigal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Madrigal & Co., Inc. instituted a forcible entry and detainer case against Concepcion L. Planas and Iluminado L. Planas, securing a judgment ordering them to vacate the property and pay rentals. This judgment became final and executory. Procedural History: A writ of execution was issued, giving the defendants 15 days to vacate. Upon their failure, Madrigal & Co., Inc. moved for the demolition of buildings on the land. Juan Planas filed an action claiming ownership of four buildings and sought an injunction, which was denied. Instead, the court granted the demolition motion. Juan Planas and Sofia Verdon subsequently filed third-party claims with the Provincial Sheriff, alleging ownership of the buildings and personal property therein, respectively, and requesting an indemnity bond from the judgment creditor. The judgment creditor filed a motion to quash these claims, which the court granted, also discarding the notice requiring an indemnity bond. Juan Planas filed a second third-party claim for the materials of the demolished houses, which was also quashed. Separately, Juan Planas and others were ordered to vacate the land, an order they sought to reconsider but was denied. The Petition: Petitioners Juan Planas and Sofia Verdon filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the orders quashing their third-party claims and the order directing Juan Planas to vacate the land, arguing the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the quashing and discarding of the first and second third-party claims. Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner Juan Planas to vacate the land, not being a party to the original forcible entry and detainer case.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The action taken by the respondent Judge in quashing the third-party claims and ordering the occupants to vacate the premises was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
On the quashing of third-party claims: The Court held that the respondent Judge acted within his discretion. While the sheriff is generally bound to respect a third-party claim unless an indemnity bond is posted by the judgment creditor, the court, after proper hearing and consideration of documentary evidence, found the third-party claims to be without merit. Circumstantial evidence, including the registration of the houses in the name of the defendant mother and averments in the defendants' answer and their counsel's letter indicating the houses belonged to the defendants, strongly suggested that Juan Planas's claim of ownership was an eleventh-hour attempt to frustrate the execution of the judgment. The Rules of Court, specifically Section 15 of Rule 39, reserves to a third person the right to vindicate their claim in a proper action, which Juan Planas had done by filing a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 1961), still pending. On ordering Juan Planas to vacate the land: The Court found this order justified. The record showed that before issuing the order, the court conducted a summary hearing where Juan Planas and other occupants were summoned to show cause why they should not be ejected. The respondent Judge found that Juan Planas and the other occupants were mere transferees or possessors pendente lite, whose right to occupy was subsidiary to that of the original defendant, Concepcion L. Planas. As such, they are bound by the judgment rendered against the latter, consistent with established jurisprudence. While these were questions of fact, the proper venue for their thorough resolution was an ordinary action, not the certiorari proceeding.
Main Doctrine
A third-party claimant, whose claim over property levied in execution has been quashed, is not completely deprived of recourse, as the Rules of Court reserve the right to vindicate such claim in a proper action.