Ducat v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ventura O. Ducat was the defendant in Civil Case No. 5277 filed by respondent Papa Securities Corporation to recover P3,159,253.37. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Papa Securities, which became final and executory after appeals failed. The trial court granted the motion for execution. Petitioner's shares of stock and properties, including his Ayala Alabang house and lot and Wack Wack house and lot, were levied and sold on execution. Papa Securities emerged as the highest bidder for the Wack Wack property, applying the bid price to the judgment debt. Procedural History: The trial court issued a writ of possession. Petitioner later discovered a discrepancy in the judgment debt calculation, alleging an excess of P7,864,299.58. He filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to Annul Execution Sale, which was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed his Petition for Certiorari. His subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules and for failure to show reversible error. Petitioner filed further motions to declare failure of auction sale and for protective orders, which were also denied by the trial court. The trial court noted an agreement to refer the matter of the "excess" to Sycip Gorres and Velayo (SGV) for final determination, with the issuance of the writ of possession to be simultaneous with payment of any excess. Papa Securities then manifested its willingness to pay the claimed excess of P7,864,299.58 to "buy peace." The trial court ordered Papa Securities to secure a Manager's Check for this amount and stated that the Alias Writ of Possession would issue simultaneously. The Petition: Petitioner questioned the trial court's order via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals, which was denied. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding estoppel, grave abuse of discretion, and the nullification of the Certificate of Sale.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is estopped from questioning the trial court's order regarding the excess bid and the issuance of the writ of possession. Whether the validity of the execution sale and the Certificate of Sale can still be questioned, considering previous rulings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 119652, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. In the administrative case, A.M. No. P-00-1358, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estoppel regarding the excess bid and writ of possession: The Court held that petitioner is estopped from questioning the trial court's order. Petitioner's filing of an Urgent Omnibus Motion was followed by a Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Set Parameters of Computation, indicating acquiescence to the trial court's order referring the matter of excess to SGV and the subsequent issuance of a writ of possession. Instead of immediately questioning the order, he sought parameters for computation, which implied agreement with the process. When Papa Securities agreed to pay the claimed excess to "buy peace," the condition petitioner implicitly agreed to was met, necessitating the issuance of the writ of possession. The Court emphasized that a party cannot change its position to suit its needs and that acquiescence to a court's determination estops a party from questioning its jurisdiction. The doctrine of estoppel, as defined in Article 1431 of the Civil Code, prevents a party from denying admissions or representations made, especially when another party has relied on them to their prejudice. On the issue of the validity of the execution sale and Certificate of Sale: The Court ruled that this issue is barred by the doctrine of "law of the case." The validity of the auction sale had been previously determined by the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 32568, and subsequently reviewed by the Supreme Court, which denied the petition for review. The Court reiterated that whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal principle or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, regardless of its correctness, as long as the facts remain the same. Reopening settled issues would lead to endless litigation. The Court noted that the Certificate of Sale is merely a certification of the auction sale proceedings, and praying for its cancellation is tantamount to praying for the nullification of the sale itself, which has already been settled.
Main Doctrine
A party who acquiesces to an order of the trial court by seeking parameters for computation, instead of immediately filing a petition for certiorari, is estopped from later questioning the said order. Furthermore, the validity of an execution sale, once affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, becomes the law of the case and cannot be reopened.