Borbajo v. Hidden View Homeowners
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felicitacion Borbajo filed a complaint for injunction against respondents, seeking to prevent them from barring her use of three road lots within Hidden View Subdivision I, which were titled in her name. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, holding that road lots cannot be sold to private individuals under P.D. No. 957. This Court, in its Decision dated 31 January 2005, reversed the CA, reinstated the RTC's writ of preliminary injunction, making it permanent, but subject to the final outcome of Civil Case No. 21239 pending before RTC, Cebu City, Branch 9. The Petition: Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that Civil Case No. 21239, which involved the annulment of petitioner's titles to the road lots, had been resolved against petitioner through a Decision dated 22 April 2003, which was allegedly final and executory. This RTC decision declared the deed of sale and the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) in petitioner's name null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of preliminary injunction, previously made permanent by this Court, should be declared functus officio in light of a subsequent final and executory judgment nullifying the petitioner's titles. Whether the petitioner's claim that the intervenors in Civil Case No. 21239 were not furnished a copy of the decision is a valid ground to prevent the judgment from attaining finality.
Ruling
The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC, Cebu City, Branch 58, and made permanent by this Court's Decision dated 31 January 2005, is hereby declared functus officio.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the writ of preliminary injunction should be declared functus officio: The Court held that the writ of preliminary injunction, which was made permanent, had become functus officio. This was because the legal basis for its issuance, namely the petitioner's titles over the road lots, had been nullified by the final and executory Decision dated 22 April 2003 rendered by the RTC, Cebu City, Branch 9, in Civil Case No. 21239. The Court noted that this RTC decision had already been executed, with new Transfer Certificates of Title issued in the name of Hidden View Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc., cancelling the previous titles in petitioner's name. The Court reiterated its earlier observation that if the titles were found to be fraudulently obtained, the petitioner's right to the road lots and her right-of-way would cease. Therefore, with the titles nullified, the injunctive relief was no longer tenable. On whether the petitioner's claim regarding lack of notice prevents finality: The Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the decision in Civil Case No. 21239 did not attain finality because intervenors were not furnished a copy of the decision. This claim was unsubstantiated, especially since an entry of judgment, recording the decision as final and executory, was issued by the RTC on 26 June 2003. The petitioner did not allege that the intervenors who purportedly did not receive notice had availed of any legal remedies. Consequently, the petitioner could not assert such failure to acquit herself of any liability arising from that judgment. The Court emphasized that a final judgment had been rendered and executed, canceling the petitioner's titles.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary injunction, previously made permanent, becomes functus officio when the legal basis for its issuance, namely the petitioner's title to the property, has been nullified by a final and executory judgment in a separate case.