Unsay v. Diaz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action (Civil Case No. 2798) filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The plaintiffs, respondents herein Feliza Diaz and David Liwanag, sought to collect a sum of money and enforce a right of usufruct over parcels of land located in Pasig and Cainta, Rizal. The defendants, including petitioners Basilio Unsay and Antonia Manalo, contested this claim, asserting that their title to the land, as purchasers for value and in good faith, was indefeasible and not subject to the claimed usufruct, especially since it was not noted on their Torrens Certificate of Title. Procedural History: The trial court rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to deliver possession of the land for the duration of the usufruct. While some defendants appealed this decision, petitioners Basilio Unsay and Antonia Manalo did not. Instead, nearly five months after the judgment became final as to them, they filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. This motion, along with subsequent motions to reconsider and to quash the writ of execution, were denied. Petitioners then sought certiorari with preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals to annul the trial court's orders, but the appellate court also dismissed their petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising two main issues: (1) whether the action could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and (2) the propriety of executing the judgment against them despite their non-appeal. They argue that their defense of indefeasible title applies to all defendants, and thus the appeal by other co-defendants should suspend execution as to them. The Supreme Court, modifying the Court of Appeals' decision, annulled the execution order for possession against the petitioners, holding that if the underlying defense is not personal, an appeal by one defendant can inure to the benefit of all. However, the Court qualified that execution might still issue for any money judgment if it were found to be several.
Issue(s)
Whether the action filed in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 2798) may be dismissed on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction. Whether the execution of the judgment, particularly the delivery of possession of the land, was proper with respect to the defendants who did not appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. The order of execution requiring the petitioners to deliver possession of the land was annulled. However, execution may issue as to the money judgment, if any, and if held to be several. In all other respects, the decision appealed from was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal for lack or excess of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the appellate court that the Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the action. The action was an ordinary one for collection of money and enforcement of a right of usufruct over land within the province, and all parties were duly served with summons. The defense that the title was indefeasible and free of encumbrances, even if true, did not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction, nor did it constitute a collateral attack on the title. The Court noted that these defenses were not raised in the trial court, but rather for the first time on appeal. On the propriety of execution with respect to defendants who did not appeal: The Supreme Court held that jurisprudence establishes that the effect of an appeal by one of several judgment debtors depends on the facts of the case. If the judgment can only be sustained upon the liability of the appellant, and the liability of others depends solely on the appellant's liability, then a reversal as to the appellant benefits all. In this case, the defense raised by the defendants, including the petitioners, was that they were purchasers in good faith and for value, and that the usufruct was not annotated on their title. This defense was not personal to any specific defendant but would apply to all. Therefore, the liability concerning the usufruct was not several. Consequently, the execution of the judgment ordering the delivery of possession of the land, pending appeal by some defendants, should not have issued against the petitioners who did not appeal. The Court qualified this by stating that if the money judgment was found to be several, it could still be executed against the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
Where the liability of each judgment debtor is several, and one appeals only, the judgment on appeal will not affect those who did not appeal. However, if the judgment can only be sustained upon the liability of the one who appeals, and the liability of the other judgment debtors solely depends upon the question whether or not the appellant is liable, and the judgment is revoked as to that appellant, then the result of his appeal will inure to the benefit of all. Execution on a judgment that is subject to appeal by some defendants should not issue against other defendants who did not appeal, if the appeal affects the common liability.