Yao v. Perello
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a complaint filed by petitioner Lincoln L. Yao before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) against PR Builders, Inc. and its managers, Enrico Baluyot and Pablito Villarin. The HLURB rendered a decision rescinding a contract to sell and ordering PR Builders to refund petitioner P2,116,103.31 plus damages. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued and referred for enforcement, leading to the levy on a parcel of land co-owned by Pablito Villarin and his wife, private respondent Bernadine D. Villarin. 2. Procedural History: Following the levy on the co-owned property, private respondent Bernadine D. Villarin filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, seeking to stop the scheduled auction sale. She argued that the property was co-owned and that she was not a party to the HLURB case, thus her share could not be levied for her husband's separate liability. The RTC granted the petition for prohibition, declaring the property exempt from execution. Petitioner Lincoln L. Yao subsequently filed a motion for intervention, which was denied by the RTC on the grounds that it was filed too late, as the case had already been decided. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Lincoln L. Yao filed the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's resolution granting the petition for prohibition and its subsequent order denying his motion for intervention. He contends that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the property exempt from execution and in denying his intervention. The petition argues that the property, being co-owned, could not be sold for the separate debt of his husband, and that his right to intervene was improperly denied, as he was an indispensable party to the prohibition proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the subject property exempt from execution. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for intervention.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The resolution and order of the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 276, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of exempting the property from execution: The Court reiterated the basic precept that a court's power in the execution of judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. The levy on property must be made under the authority of the court only vis-à-vis property belonging to the defendant, as "one man's goods shall not be sold for another man's debts." In this case, the property levied was co-owned by private respondent, who was a stranger to the HLURB case. The property regime between the spouses was complete separation of property, as decreed by a prior RTC order. Under Articles 145 and 146 of the Family Code, separate properties of spouses can only answer for liabilities to creditors when those liabilities are incurred for family expenses, which was not shown to be the case here. Therefore, private respondent acted within her rights in filing a petition for prohibition against the sheriff who exceeded his authority. On the issue of denying the motion for intervention: The Court found no basis for petitioner's claim that he had a right to intervene. Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, governing petitions for prohibition, does not require the inclusion of a private party as a respondent. Furthermore, for intervention to be allowed, the movant must have a legal interest in the matter and the adjudication of the original parties' rights should not be delayed or prejudiced. Petitioner's right as a judgment creditor was not adversely affected, as other properties exclusively owned by the defendants in the HLURB case were available for levy. Even if he had the right to intervene, he failed to exercise it within the prescribed period. The Rules of Court state that a motion for intervention may be filed at any time before the rendition of judgment by the trial court. Petitioner filed his motion on April 25, 2002, more than a month after the RTC resolution of March 22, 2002, which had become final and executory by April 6, 2002. The RTC judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for being too late.
Main Doctrine
A petition for prohibition under Rule 65 does not require the inclusion of a private party as respondent, and intervention may be denied if filed beyond the period prescribed by the Rules of Court, especially when the resolution sought to be intervened in has already become final and executory.