Mejia-Espinoza v. Cariño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from two consolidated ejectment suits filed by petitioner Estrella Mejia-Espinoza against respondent Nena A. Cariño and Alberto Cariño. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially ruled in favor of Espinoza, ordering both respondents to vacate the premises and pay rentals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the decision concerning Nena Cariño, dismissing the case against her, but affirmed the ruling against Alberto Cariño. The Court of Appeals (CA) Special Seventeenth Division later reversed the RTC's dismissal of the case against Nena Cariño, reinstating the MTC's decision, which included an order to vacate and pay rentals, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees. This decision became final and executory after the Supreme Court denied Nena Cariño's petition for review. Procedural History: Following the finality of the ejectment judgment against Nena Cariño, Espinoza sought a writ of execution from the MTC, which was granted. The writ was served, and Nena Cariño voluntarily vacated the property. Subsequently, a levy was made on Nena Cariño's commercial lot to satisfy the monetary awards. Nena Cariño then filed a complaint before the RTC, seeking the annulment of court processes, including the writ of execution and the levy. The RTC dismissed her complaint, ruling that she availed of the wrong remedy and that the levy was proper. However, the Court of Appeals Fourth Division reversed the RTC, holding that Nena Cariño's complaint was a valid action for annulment and that the writ of execution and levy were void. The CA also ordered the remand of the case for determination of damages related to the demolition of a building on the property. The Petition: The petitioners, Estrella Mejia-Espinoza and Norma Mejia Dellosa, seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. They argue that the CA erred in annulling the writ of execution and levy, contending that Nena Cariño was aware of and acquiesced to the writ, rendering her estopped from questioning its validity. They also assert that Nena Cariño was not entitled to a motion for reconsideration of the order granting execution, as the issuance of such a writ is a ministerial duty upon a final and executory judgment. Furthermore, petitioners argue that the CA erred in awarding damages for the demolition of the building, as Nena Cariño had already filed a separate complaint for damages and failed to prove she constructed the building. Finally, they contend that the CA misinterpreted the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' prior decision, which affirmed the MTC's monetary awards.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court may be used to annul court processes such as a writ of execution and levy on execution. Whether Nena is estopped from questioning the validity of the writ of execution. Whether Nena is entitled to damages for the demolition of the one-story building. Whether the levy on Nena's commercial lot was void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that Rule 47 is not the proper remedy for annulling court processes like writs of execution or levies, and that Nena's claims were without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of Rule 47: The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy available only when ordinary remedies are no longer possible and only on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. It does not apply to an action to annul a writ of execution or a levy on execution, as these are not judgments or final orders contemplated by Rule 47. The proper remedy for Nena was to file a motion to nullify the writ of execution and notices of levy and sale before the MTC, which issued the processes. The RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for being the wrong remedy, although it misidentified the proper recourse as a petition for relief under Rule 38. On Nena's estoppel and mootness: The Court found that Nena is estopped from questioning the validity of the writ of execution because she voluntarily vacated the premises and turned over possession, thereby recognizing and acquiescing to the writ. Her actions rendered any issue arising from the issuance or enforcement of the writ moot. Furthermore, her claim that she was deprived of due process for not receiving a copy of the order granting the writ is without basis, as a motion for reconsideration of such an order is not mandatory and may be considered dilatory. The issuance of a writ of execution based on a final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty of the court. On damages for demolition and litis pendentia: While a special writ of demolition is required for the removal of improvements, the Court noted that Nena admitted to having previously filed a complaint for damages related to the alleged illegal demolition. This renders her current complaint, insofar as it sought damages for the demolition, dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia. Moreover, the CA erred in assuming Nena built the one-story building without sufficient evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging, and Nena failed to present evidence to substantiate her claim of ownership of the improvement. On the levy on commercial lot: The Court found that the CA erred in holding that the levy was void because the dispositive portion of the CA decision did not mention a monetary award. The CA 17th Division Decision explicitly affirmed the MTC Decision, which included monetary awards for rentals, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees. Therefore, the levy was a proper enforcement of a final and executory judgment.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy available only when ordinary remedies are no longer possible and only on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. It does not apply to annulment of court processes such as a writ of execution or levy on execution, which should be assailed before the court that issued them.