Ariem v. People's Homesite & Housing Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. Q-12775 was filed by People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) against Nicasio Barles for the ejectment from Lot No. 16, Block 15, Psd-57771. Judgment was rendered in favor of PHHC, ordering Barles to vacate the lot and remove his house. Procedural History: After the judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued. Nicasio Barles filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was denied. Subsequently, Florenda Ariem filed a petition to lift the writ of execution, claiming to be the bona fide occupant and not Barles, who was allegedly her caretaker. This petition was also denied. The Petition: Florenda Ariem filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the order denying her petition to lift the writ of execution, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition to lift the writ of execution and in ruling that the petitioner is bound by the judgment of eviction against the defendant.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order issued by this Court is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge did not abuse his discretion because Nicasio Barles was established as the real party-in-interest actually in possession of the property. The Court observed that Barles had actively participated in the proceedings by filing a motion to dismiss and a petition for relief to 'protect his interests,' which contradicts the claim that he was a mere caretaker for Ariem. The Court characterized Ariem's intervention as an 'eleventh hour attempt' to save Barles from eviction, noting that as Barles' mother-in-law, she would have known of the case earlier if she were the actual bona fide occupant. Applying the rule from Gozon v. De la Rosa, the Court emphasized that a judgment in an ejectment case binds the defendant and all members of his family, relatives, and privies who occupy the premises by his consent or hospitality. Since Ariem is a relative and privy of Barles, she cannot claim possession in good faith to avoid the effects of the judgment. Furthermore, the petitioner was not denied due process, as the respondent Judge provided her with a hearing on her petition to lift the writ, giving her an opportunity to be heard regarding her alleged possession. The Court concluded that petitioner’s claim was a mere pretext to prolong Barles' illegal possession of land owned by the People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC).
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to nullify an order denying a motion to lift a writ of execution will be dismissed where the petitioner, claiming to be the bona fide occupant, is a privy to the defendant against whom the judgment was rendered, and her claim appears to be a pretext to delay execution.