Santos v. Mojica
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teodorico Allanigue, et al. filed an action for partition of a residential land in Parañaque, Rizal. The Court of First Instance (CFI) found the land was owned by Apolonio Allanigue, who died in 1932, leaving twelve heirs from his first and second marriages, along with his second wife, Rosa de Leon. The CFI ordered the partition of the property among the twelve heirs. The decision became final as no appeal was filed. Procedural History: As the heirs failed to agree on an amicable partition, the CFI appointed commissioners. Lorenza Allanigue was awarded a portion of 30 sq.m. This portion was ordered to be set off against rentals she owed in the amount of P990.00. Upon her failure to pay, a writ of execution was issued against her and those deriving interest from her. The sheriff attempted to enforce the writ by ejecting Lorenza Allanigue, et al. The Petition: Leonardo Santos notified the sheriff that the property could not be included in the partition as it was his. The sheriff informed the CFI, which required the plaintiffs to file an indemnity bond to continue execution. Santos then filed a motion to recall the writ, reiterating his claim of ownership. This motion was denied. The CFI gave Santos and other occupants 30 days to vacate, and upon their refusal, set a hearing for the demolition of houses on the land. Lorenza Allanigue, Maria San Agustin, and Felicidad San Agustin opposed the demolition, but their opposition and subsequent motion for reconsideration were overruled. They, along with Santos, filed the present petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the CFI.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the enforcement of its decision, including the demolition of houses, despite the third-party claim of Leonardo Santos and the opposition of Lorenza Allanigue, Maria San Agustin, and Felicidad San Agustin. Whether Leonardo Santos, as a third-party claimant, properly availed himself of the remedy of a motion to recall the writ of execution and a subsequent petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court found that the petitioners failed to avail themselves of the proper legal remedies and that Leonardo Santos, in particular, should have filed a separate and independent action to vindicate his ownership.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the petitioners, including Lorenza Allanigue and the San Agustin sisters, had no valid reason to complain against the respondent court's order to enforce its decision. They were parties to the partition case, and the decision had become final. The remedy of partition was properly pursued, and the subsequent execution, including the award of a portion to Lorenza Allanigue in satisfaction of her debt, was a consequence of that final decision. Their failure to appeal the original decision meant they could not later challenge the enforcement of a valid and final judgment through a petition for certiorari, especially when they had an adequate remedy in the course of law which they failed to utilize. The court's order for demolition was a necessary step to enforce the final judgment. On Issue 2: The Court held that Leonardo Santos, despite not being an original party to the partition case, had improperly pursued his claim of ownership. While he asserted that the property was his, his remedy was not to file a motion to recall the writ of execution within the original partition case. The proper procedure for a third-party claimant is to file a separate and independent action to assert ownership over the property being levied upon. This action should implead the sheriff and the judgment creditor. By filing a motion within the original case and subsequently a petition for certiorari when that motion was denied, Santos failed to follow the sanctioned legal procedure for vindicating his alleged ownership, thus rendering his petition improper.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a third-party claimant, such as Leonardo Santos, who asserts ownership over property levied upon to satisfy a judgment against another, cannot simply file a motion to recall the writ of execution within the original case. Instead, the proper remedy is to file a separate and independent action to assert ownership, making the sheriff and the judgment creditor parties to the new suit. Resorting to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without exhausting the proper remedies is also improper.