Suan v. Cusi, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from Civil Case No. 5654, an action for cancellation of document, recovery of possession, and damages, filed by Amalia Vda. de Suan and others (petitioners) against Segundo Emphasis and others. The trial court ruled against the petitioners, dismissing their complaint and ordering them to pay moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, to the defendants, including herein private respondents Lorenzo L. Eviota and Mariana Eviota. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners' appeal of the decision in Civil Case No. 5654 was dismissed by the Court of Appeals due to their failure to pay the docketing fee and file a printed record on appeal, rendering the judgment final and executory. Subsequently, the provincial sheriff levied on execution three parcels of land belonging to the petitioners, which were then sold at public auction to the private respondents, Lorenzo L. Eviota and Mariana Eviota, as the highest bidders. The sheriff issued a Provisional Certificate of Sale and later an Absolute Deed of Sale, which was registered. The petitioners later filed a new action, Civil Case No. 528, seeking the annulment of the auction sale and writ of possession. In the interim, the private respondents filed an ex-parte motion in Civil Case No. 5654 for the execution of an absolute deed of sale for a specific lot, which the respondent judge granted. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, challenging the respondent judge's order granting the ex-parte motion. They argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction because the land involved was situated in Davao del Sur, not Davao, and that the court abused its discretion by not allowing them to oppose the ex-parte motion. This Court issued a temporary restraining order against the respondent judge's order.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the ex-parte motion to execute an absolute deed of sale. Whether the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch I, had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 5654, considering the location of the properties involved.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court is dissolved. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge and upheld the validity of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the ex-parte motion. The decision in Civil Case No. 5654 had already become final and executory, making the auction sale a valid consequence thereof. The order granting the ex-parte motion was merely one of the procedural steps to formalize the transfer of ownership pursuant to the executed sale. The Court also noted that the petitioners' claim of not being given an opportunity to oppose the motion was without merit, as they could have filed a motion for reconsideration. The principle of immutability of a final and executory judgment was paramount. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were in estoppel with respect to the issue of venue. By voluntarily filing Civil Case No. 5654 in the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch I, they submitted themselves to its jurisdiction and waived any objection to the venue. The Court emphasized that a party cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction to obtain affirmative relief and then later repudiate or question that same jurisdiction when the judgment is unfavorable. This practice of accepting a favorable judgment while attacking an adverse one for lack of jurisdiction is not tolerated. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the Court of First Instance of Davao had multiple branches, and there was no material or legal impediment for any of its branches to try the case, especially since the petitioners themselves chose to file it there.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a party who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of a court and actively participates in the proceedings to obtain affirmative relief is estopped from later assailing the court's jurisdiction or venue. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable and can no longer be modified, and subsequent proceedings, such as execution sales, are valid consequences thereof, even if the losing party failed to perfect their appeal due to procedural lapses.