Estoesta Sr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originates from a dispute over a house and lot originally awarded by the Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) to spouses Simeon and Lucia Estoesta in 1953. The Estoestas transferred occupancy to their daughter, Trinidad Estoesta, and other children while they moved to Davao City. Trinidad facilitated payments to PHHC and, for convenience, the property was transferred to her name in 1969. A restriction on the title prohibited sale within five years without PHHC consent. In 1973, the Estoestas learned Trinidad was offering the property for sale and agreed to re-acquire it under specific conditions: they would pay Trinidad P10,000.00 within one year and assume her GSIS loan. A deed of sale was executed in their favor on February 11, 1974. However, before the five-year restriction expired and without PHHC consent, Trinidad sold the property to Luis Villamor on August 5, 1974, for P17,000.00. The Estoestas alleged Villamor was a buyer in bad faith due to his knowledge of the property's occupancy by others. Procedural History: The spouses Simeon and Lucia Estoesta filed an action to annul the sale to Luis Villamor. The trial court initially denied Trinidad Estoesta's motion to dismiss and later declared her in default. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch LXXXIII, rendered a decision on August 15, 1978, declaring the sale to Villamor null and void, ordering the cancellation of titles, and directing Trinidad Estoesta and Luis Villamor to pay the Estoestas P5,000.00 for litigation costs and P5,000.00 for attorney's fees. Luis Villamor filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied on May 2, 1979. Villamor then filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal bond on August 7, 1979, subsequently filing a motion for extension to file the Record on Appeal. The Estoestas moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was not perfected on time. Despite this, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and, after several further motions and reconsiderations, eventually ordered the transmittal of the amended record on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 16, 1980. The CA, on October 30, 1984, reversed the RTC decision, upholding the sale to Villamor and ordering the Estoestas to pay damages and attorney's fees. The Estoestas' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on October 29, 1985. Their petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 72662) was denied on January 6, 1986, with a second motion for reconsideration also denied on April 30, 1986. To enforce the CA decision, the RTC issued a writ of execution on May 12, 1986. The Estoestas filed an urgent motion to quash this writ, which was denied by the RTC on May 21, 1986, along with a denial of their motion for reconsideration on May 29, 1986. The Petition: This petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeks to annul the RTC's orders dated May 21 and May 29, 1986, which denied the Estoestas' urgent motion to quash the writ of execution and their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Estoestas argue that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion and acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by enforcing the writ of execution based on the Court of Appeals' decision, which they contend is a patent nullity. Their primary argument is that the appeal to the CA was not perfected within the reglementary period, rendering the RTC's August 15, 1978 decision final and executory. They assert that the CA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and therefore had no authority to issue a decision that reversed the trial court's judgment. The petition contends that a void judgment cannot be legally executed, and thus the issuance of the writ of execution by the trial court was an act performed with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Estoestas pray for the annulment of the CA decision and the RTC orders enforcing it, and for the execution of the RTC's original decision dated August 15, 1978.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in enforcing the writ of execution despite the alleged nullity of the Court of Appeals' decision. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' urgent motion to quash the writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 30, 1984, and the Orders of the respondent Judge dated May 21 and May 29, 1986, are declared null and void. The writ of execution issued to enforce the appellate court's decision is nullified. The lower court is directed to execute its decision dated August 15, 1978.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in enforcing the writ of execution: The Court found that the Court of Appeals' decision was null and void because private respondent Luis Villamor's appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal on time renders the decision final and executory by operation of law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals, having acquired no jurisdiction over the appeal, had no authority to entertain it. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment at all and all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be enforced was null and void. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the writ of execution: Since the Court of Appeals' decision was declared null and void, it could not be legally executed. While the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution for a valid and executory judgment, in this case, the judgment sought to be executed was void. Therefore, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction when it issued the writ of execution to enforce a void judgment. The Supreme Court directed the lower court to execute its own decision dated August 15, 1978, which had become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed under it and claims flowing out of it are void.