Manzano v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marcos and Macario Bambico were ordered by the Court of First Instance (CFI) to vacate land and pay damages to Santiago Manzano. The decision became final and executory. Procedural History: Manzano obtained a writ of execution, leading to the sheriff levying two parcels of land and a house declared under Tax Declaration No. 30715, allegedly belonging to the Bambicos. These properties were sold at public auction to Manzano. After the redemption period expired, Manzano took possession and sought a court order for the sheriff to supervise the demolition of the house. The Bambicos objected, claiming they were not the owners and that an annulment case regarding the properties was pending. Their opposition was overruled, and their motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Zoila Sabado, claiming to be the wife of Marcos Bambico and the owner of the properties, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to set aside the demolition order. The CA granted the writ, setting aside the demolition order. The case is now before the Supreme Court on a petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the demolition of the residential house despite a pending action to annul the execution proceedings and contest the ownership of the levied properties. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of certiorari and setting aside the demolition order.
Ruling
The petition for review is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside the demolition order is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in ordering the demolition of the residential house. While the properties were declared in the name of Marcos Bambico, their ownership was contested by Zoila Sabado in a separate action for annulment (Civil Case No. 1744), alleging they were conjugal properties acquired during their marriage. Although no claim was filed with the sheriff during the levy, this does not preclude them from asserting ownership in a separate action, as provided by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The existence of a pending action to annul the execution proceedings, which put the ownership in issue, warranted a stay of demolition until the ownership dispute was resolved. The trial court's disregard of this pending action and its order for demolition was improper, as it denied the Bambicos a chance to be heard regarding their claimed interest in the properties. On Issue 2: The Court of Appeals correctly granted the writ of certiorari. Certiorari is a proper remedy when a lower court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the trial court gravely abused its discretion by ordering the demolition of properties whose ownership was actively being litigated in a separate, pending annulment case. The CA's action in setting aside the demolition order was a necessary measure to uphold due process and prevent irreparable damage to the party claiming ownership, ensuring that the ownership dispute is properly adjudicated before execution proceeds.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly set aside the demolition order issued by the trial court because a separate action to annul the execution proceedings, wherein the ownership of the levied properties was contested, was already pending. It is imperative that such ownership claims be resolved before any demolition is effected, ensuring that the parties claiming interest in the property are given a chance to be heard and that the execution proceeds against properties rightfully belonging to the judgment debtor.