Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A decision rendered on April 30, 1976, ordered Genoveva Laxamana to pay petitioner Jaime R. Rodriguez P7,500.00 with interest and P1,500.00 for attorney's fees. The decision became final and executory by October 13, 1977. Property of Laxamana was sold at public auction to petitioner Rodriguez, who was the highest bidder. A final deed of sale was issued to petitioner on March 1, 1982, and a transfer certificate of title was issued in his name on November 17, 1986. Procedural History: On February 14, 1979, petitioner filed a motion for execution. On July 8, 1983, the trial court granted this motion. A writ of possession was issued on August 29, 1988. On September 23, 1988, private respondent Apolinario Sanchez filed a third-party claim, alleging he bought the land from Laxamana on March 30, 1982. The trial court dismissed Sanchez's claim and issued a writ of demolition on December 14, 1989. Sanchez's petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 23406). Sanchez then filed a complaint for annulment of the sale to petitioner, obtaining a preliminary injunction, which was later set aside by the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 30225). Petitioner filed motions for alias and second alias writs of demolition, which were granted on October 10, 1994, and July 10, 1995, respectively. Sanchez filed a third petition for certiorari, which the Court of Appeals granted on October 26, 1995, declaring the writ of execution dated July 8, 1983, the writ of possession dated August 29, 1988, and the writs of demolition void for being issued beyond the five-year period for execution by motion, which expired on October 13, 1982. The CA also declared the auction sale void for lack of an order for sale. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner argues that an order for the sale of the property was issued on February 23, 1979, within the five-year period. He contends that subsequent writs of possession and demolition were ancillary processes to implement this earlier order. He also claims the CA's decision was barred by res judicata due to prior CA rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the writs of execution, possession, and demolition were void for having been issued beyond the five-year period for execution by motion. Whether the auction sale of the property was void for lack of an order for sale. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the prior decisions of the same court as res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The order of the Regional Trial Court for the issuance of an Alias Writ of Demolition is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the execution, possession, and demolition writs: The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the execution proceedings were void. While it is true that the decision became final and executory on October 13, 1977, and the five-year period for execution by motion expired on October 13, 1982, the records show that petitioner's motion for execution was granted by an order dated February 23, 1979. This order predated the expiration of the five-year period. The subsequent orders, including the writ of possession and demolition, were merely ancillary processes to implement the execution order issued on February 23, 1979. The fact that the order of July 8, 1983, erroneously stated it was acting on a motion filed on February 14, 1979, does not invalidate the prior execution order, especially since the records indicate the levy and sale occurred based on the February 23, 1979 order. The absence of the February 23, 1979 order in the records does not automatically render the sale void, as the burden was on private respondent to prove its non-existence, given the presumption of regularity in the conduct of the sale. The Court noted that the personnel records showed a change in judges, which could explain the oversight in later orders. On the validity of the auction sale: The auction sale was not void. The execution of the judgment commenced with the levy made on March 7, 1979, and its inscription on March 8, 1979, pursuant to the February 23, 1979 order. The sale was conducted on April 30, 1979, and a final deed of sale was issued on March 1, 1982. A Transfer Certificate of Title was issued to petitioner on November 17, 1986. These events clearly indicate that the sale was based on an order issued within the five-year period. Private respondent's claim of purchasing the property on March 30, 1982, could not assert rights superior to petitioner's registered title, which was consolidated through a valid execution process. On the issue of res judicata: The Court found merit in petitioner's contention that the case was barred by res judicata. The Court of Appeals had previously dismissed Sanchez's petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 23406) assailing the dismissal of his third-party claim, ruling that his remedy was a separate reivindicatory action. Despite this, Sanchez filed another complaint for annulment of the sale before a co-equal branch of the RTC. When this was elevated to the CA, it was again set aside. The subsequent petition for certiorari before the CA, which led to the present case, involved the same core issues regarding the validity of the execution proceedings, which had already been passed upon in prior decisions of the appellate court. Therefore, the principle of res judicata should have been applied.
Main Doctrine
Writs of possession and demolition are merely ancillary processes to carry out a prior order of execution, and their issuance, even if after the five-year period for execution by motion, is valid if based on an execution order issued within the said period. A third-party claimant's remedy is a separate reivindicatory action, not a collateral attack on the execution proceedings.