Nazareno v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Natividad Nazareno filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Damages against spouses Romeo and Eliza Nazareno. Natividad claimed ownership of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 51798. She alleged that she lent her title to Romeo and Eliza to be used as collateral for a loan to complete the construction of the Naic Cinema on the property, with the condition that the title be returned within one year. Natividad executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the spouses, but it was simulated as no consideration was received. The cinema was completed, but the spouses failed to return the title and instead transferred the property to their names, resulting in TCT No. T-118276. Romeo and Eliza denied Natividad's ownership, claiming the property was part of their father's estate and Romeo's inheritance, with Natividad entrusted with its distribution. Procedural History: The trial court ruled in favor of Romeo and Eliza, treating the simulated Deed of Absolute Sale as an adjudication of Romeo's share in the estate. The Court of Appeals reversed this, finding the sale simulated and Romeo's claim of inheritance unsubstantiated. The CA declared the Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. 118276 void, ordering the restoration of TCT No. 51798 to Natividad. This decision became final and executory. Natividad then filed a Manifestation and Motion for a writ of execution and a writ of possession. The spouses opposed, arguing possession was not prayed for nor decreed. The RTC granted the writ of execution but denied the writ of possession. The CA denied Natividad's petition, stating a writ of possession would be void as it was not decreed in the judgment and is generally improper in annulment of sale cases. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the CA's denial of the writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the adjudication of ownership in the Court of Appeals' decision necessarily includes the delivery of possession; and whether the spouses Romeo and Eliza Nazareno have a valid right to remain in possession of the property. Whether a writ of possession may be issued in a case for annulment of sale and damages when possession was not explicitly decreed. Whether the issue of ownership and possession of the Naic Cinema can be resolved in the annulment case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals denying the issuance of a writ of possession is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether adjudication of ownership includes possession and the spouses' right to possession: The Court reiterated the principle that adjudication of ownership necessarily includes delivery of possession, as it would be defeating the ends of justice to require new litigation for parties to obtain possession of property duly adjudged to them. However, an exception exists where the actual possessor has a valid right over the property enforceable even against the owner. In this case, the Court of Appeals categorically declared that the claim of spouses Romeo and Eliza over the disputed lot had no factual basis, thus they had no reason to remain in possession. The Court cited Perez v. Evite to support the inclusion of possession in the writ of execution when ownership is adjudicated, distinguishing it from cases like Jabon v. Alo and Talens v. Garcia where the possessor had a valid right. The Court found that spouses Romeo and Eliza had no valid right to remain in possession of the property, as their claim of ownership was found to be without factual basis by the Court of Appeals. Their assertion that the Deed of Absolute Sale was merely to implement the distribution of their father's estate was not substantiated. Therefore, they could not invoke doctrines that protect possessors with valid rights against the owner. On the propriety of a writ of possession in an annulment of sale case: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that a writ of possession is generally improper to eject another from possession unless sought in connection with specific proceedings like land registration, foreclosure of real property, judicial foreclosure of property where the mortgagor has possession and no third party has intervened, or execution sales. This case, being for annulment of a private sale, did not fall under any of these exceptions. The Court emphasized that execution must conform to the judgment and cannot go beyond its terms. On the issue of ownership and possession of the Naic Cinema: The Court clarified that the finding against the spouses' right to possession did not automatically entitle Natividad to possession of the Naic Cinema, as its ownership and possession were not put in issue in the annulment case and Natividad herself disclaimed ownership of the cinema, claiming it belonged to her father's estate. Ownership of the cinema must be threshed out in a separate proceeding.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution must conform to the judgment it seeks to enforce and cannot vary its terms. Adjudication of ownership necessarily includes delivery of possession, unless the possessor has a valid right enforceable against the owner. A writ of possession is generally improper in an annulment of sale case unless specifically decreed.