Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute began when private respondent-spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin filed a complaint against Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation (Central Dyeing) for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 205942. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City declared Central Dyeing's title null and void, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court. Petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation later claimed to be the owner of the lot, having purchased it from Central Dyeing in good faith. 2. Procedural History: Following the finality of the RTC's decision, private respondents moved for its execution. Petitioner Eternal Gardens opposed this, asserting it was unaware of the suit and was a buyer in good faith. The RTC granted the writ of execution, finding petitioner bound as a successor-in-interest under Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Revised Rules of Court. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which noted that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the judgment even if not impleaded. Petitioner's subsequent appeals to this Court and further petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals were denied, with the courts consistently holding that the judgment was final and executory and that petitioner was bound by it as a successor-in-interest. Despite these rulings, petitioner continued to file motions and petitions, leading to further delays. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation filed a second petition for review on certiorari with this Court, reiterating arguments that the judgment could not be executed against it as it was not a party to the original case, that the decision did not mandate possession, that subsequent events rendered execution unjust, and that the execution violated lot owners' rights and was mooted by another pending case. The Court found these arguments to be reiterations of previously settled issues, noting that the case had been delayed for seventeen years. The Court emphasized that the issues had been resolved in prior proceedings and that the execution of the final judgment was a matter of public policy. The petition was ultimately denied as it was deemed frivolous and dilatory, and the underlying dispute had already been resolved and the property turned over to the private respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Eternal Gardens, as a successor-in-interest and transferee pendente lite, is bound by the final and executory judgment rendered against its transferor, Central Dyeing. Whether the execution of the judgment, including the issuance of a writ of possession, should be stayed or held in abeyance due to the pendency of another case filed by the Republic of the Philippines against the private respondents for the nullification of titles. Whether the execution of the judgment would result in the desecration of burial lots and violate the freedom of religion and worship of lot owners.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition, upholding the execution of the final judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of petitioner being bound by the judgment: The Supreme Court reiterated the settled rule that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it resolves all issues between the parties, and courts must guard against schemes to prolong litigation. Petitioner's argument that it was not a party to the original case was deemed previously resolved by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 28797, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 109076. The Court emphasized that since petitioner admitted buying the property from Central Dyeing, it is bound by the decision. Under Section 20, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, a transferee pendente lite is bound by the judgment even if not impleaded by name, as the action can be continued for or against the original party or transferor. The Court found no need to belabor this issue as it had attained finality. On the issue of staying execution due to another pending case: The Court disagreed with petitioner's contention that the pendency of Civil Case No. C-11337, filed by the Republic against private respondents for annulment of titles, justified suspending the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. C-9297. The Court reasoned that petitioner's title originated from Central Dyeing and was already annulled in the judgment sought to be executed. Therefore, even if private respondents' title were nullified in the other case, it would not validate petitioner's original title from Central Dyeing. The Court concluded that the present petition was instituted merely to delay the execution of the judgment. On the issue of desecration of burial lots and freedom of religion: The Court found petitioner's fear to be more imagined than real, noting that the trial court had taken the interests of the burial lot owners into account. The court's orders indicated steps and suggestions to protect their rights, including directing petitioner to negotiate with private respondents for cash payment to avoid demolition or desecration. The trial court also limited the enforcement of the writ of possession to avoid disturbing resting souls. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Sheriff's Return indicated the property had already been turned over to the private respondents, rendering the issue moot and academic. The Court cautioned against the prolonged delay of execution, which it deemed a mockery of justice, and reminded lawyers of their duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A transferee of a property, even if not impleaded by name, is bound by a final and executory judgment rendered against its transferor, as such transferee is considered a successor-in-interest or transferee pendente lite.