Hamoy v. Batingolo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pablo S. Hamoy filed an ejectment case against Pambaya Batingolo and others for a parcel of land in Kauswagan, Lanao. A prior administrative investigation by the Bureau of Lands had already decided in favor of Hamoy, ordering him to be placed in possession. The Court of First Instance of Lanao rendered judgment in favor of Hamoy, ordering the defendants to vacate and pay damages. Procedural History: Only Pambaya Batingolo gave notice of appeal. Hamoy sought and was granted execution of the judgment pending appeal. The sheriff placed Hamoy in possession. Macaindig Rangar, who was in possession of the land, was forcibly ejected by the sheriff despite his claim of ownership. Rangar filed an urgent motion to be restored to possession. The Petition: The trial court dismissed Rangar's motion, stating it had lost jurisdiction after approving the record on appeal and appeal bond, even though the record had not yet been forwarded. The court suggested Rangar file a separate action. Rangar's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to hear Rangar's motion after the approval of the record on appeal but before the transmittal of the record to the appellate court. Whether a person not made a party to an action can be forcibly ejected from a property by virtue of a writ of execution issued in that action without a prior hearing.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order appealed from and remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings, directing the trial court to hear Macaindig Rangar's motion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in concluding it had lost jurisdiction. While an appeal is deemed perfected upon the approval of the record on appeal and the appeal bond, Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the trial court retains certain residual powers until the record is actually forwarded to the appellate court. Specifically, the trial court may still issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that are not involved in the matter litigated in the appeal. In this instance, the claim of Macaindig Rangar was not involved in the pending appeal because he was never a party to the original case between Hamoy and Batingolo. Since the record remained with the trial court, it had the authority to address the motion to ensure Rangar's rights were not violated by the execution of a judgment to which he was a stranger. The Court noted that allowing Rangar to prove his title via a motion in the same case is the most 'expeditious manner' to protect his interests, as opposed to a long and protracted separate action. On Issue 2: The Court emphasized that judgments in actions in personam are enforceable only against the parties and their successors-in-interest, not against strangers. Under Article 446 of the Civil Code, every person in actual possession of land has a right to be respected in that possession. The Court applied the doctrine from Omaña v. Gatulayao, stating that if a person in possession is not a party to the case, their ejectment without a hearing constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law. While there are cases where a possessor may be a 'privy' to a party or acting in connivance to frustrate a judgment, the proper procedure is to conduct a hearing to determine the character of such possession before enforcement. Because the trial court aborted the hearing on the mistaken belief of lack of jurisdiction, it failed to satisfy the requirements of due process. Therefore, Rangar must be given the opportunity to present evidence regarding his title and the nature of his possession before he can be legally ousted.
Main Doctrine
A trial court retains jurisdiction to act on a motion concerning a right not litigated in the appeal, even after approving the record on appeal and appeal bond, provided the record has not yet been forwarded to the appellate court. Such a motion, filed by a third party claiming ownership and possession, should be heard to determine the character of the possession and title, rather than forcing the claimant to file a separate action.