Gonzales v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The People's Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) awarded Lot 29, Block E-418 to petitioner Venancio Gonzales. This award was later cancelled and the lot was re-awarded to Esteban Raterta, who obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). Gonzales filed Civil Case No. Q-5550, praying for PHHC to execute a contract of sale in his favor. The trial court dismissed the case but ordered PHHC to reimburse Gonzales. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court's decision, declaring Gonzales the rightful awardee and ordering PHHC to cancel Raterta's award and execute a Contract to Sell in favor of Gonzales. During the pendency of this case, the lot was sold by Esteban Raterta to Dalmacio Raterta, who then sold it to private respondents Rafael, Mario, and Vicente Santos, who were issued their own TCT. Procedural History: Gonzales filed Civil Case No. Q-23713 for Annulment of Contracts and Titles, but this was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Subsequently, Gonzales sought execution of the CA judgment in CA-G.R. No. 31757-R. The trial court noted that the records were lost but ordered that the time the records were missing be deducted from the reglementary period for service of the writ. PHHC, after consulting the Government Corporate Counsel, voluntarily executed the judgment by cancelling Raterta's award and executing a deed of sale in favor of Gonzales, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 268893 in Gonzales' name, cancelling the Santoses' TCT. Gonzales then filed a motion for a writ of possession in Civil Case No. Q-5530. The trial court granted the writ. The private respondents moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition with the CA (CA-G.R. No. SP-11334-R). The CA initially denied due course but later granted a motion for reconsideration, setting aside the trial court's order granting the writ of execution. The CA denied Gonzales' subsequent motions for reconsideration. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the CA's resolutions that set aside the trial court's order granting the writ of execution and possession.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was denied due process by the CA's issuance of a resolution on the merits without requiring him to answer. Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession. Whether the CA committed grave error of law in not maintaining the dismissal of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 11334-R.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and directed the trial court to enforce immediately the writ of possession in favor of petitioner Venancio Gonzales.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The Court held that while there were procedural lapses by the Court of Appeals in not strictly following the requirement to order the respondent to answer and in considering the case submitted for decision without formal declaration, these did not necessarily result in a denial of due process. The records showed that petitioner Gonzales was given ample opportunity to be heard, having filed a comment, two motions for reconsideration, and a memorandum. The Court reiterated that due process is satisfied as long as a party has been given an opportunity to explain their side. On the entitlement to a writ of possession: The Court ruled in favor of petitioner Gonzales. It affirmed that the decision in CA-G.R. No. 31757-R had become final and executory, granting Gonzales the right to execution. The Court found that the CA erred in ruling that the writ of possession was no longer proper due to the lapse of the five-year period for execution by motion. The Court emphasized that the time during which the records of Civil Case No. Q-5550 were lost or misplaced, through no fault of Gonzales, should be deducted from the reglementary period. The Court invoked the principle of equity, citing previous rulings that delays not attributable to the prevailing party should not be included in computing the five-year period for execution by motion. The Court noted that PHHC had voluntarily complied with the judgment by executing a deed of sale in favor of Gonzales, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 268893 in his name. On whether the CA committed grave error of law: The Court found that the CA committed grave error in setting aside the trial court's order for a writ of execution and possession. The Court reasoned that the writ of possession is a complement to a writ of execution and is necessary to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. Given that PHHC had already complied with the judgment by issuing a new title to Gonzales, and considering Esteban Raterta's affidavit of waiver acknowledging Gonzales' prior award and awareness of the litigation, the private respondents, who acquired the property from Raterta's transferees, had no more right to remain in the premises. The Court also highlighted that a Torrens Title is generally irrevocable and indefeasible and cannot be subjected to a collateral attack, and that the private respondents failed to contest the issuance of TCT No. 268893 in Gonzales' name.
Main Doctrine
The time during which the records of a case were lost or misplaced through no fault of the prevailing party shall be deducted from the period for execution of judgment by motion, and equity may be invoked in computing the five-year period to execute a judgment by motion.