Ng Siu Tam v. Amparo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the execution of a final judgment of eviction obtained by Jose M. Ocampo against his tenants, Felipe Aguasin and his wife, for premises located on Echague Street. The petitioners, Ng Siu Tam et al., are sublessees of the Aguasins and operate stores within these premises. Procedural History: Following the issuance of the eviction order by the Court of First Instance in civil case number 3527, the sheriff began executing the decision. The petitioners, asserting they were not parties to the original case, moved for a declaration that they were not bound by the judgment. This motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, were denied by the court. The petitioners were granted thirty days to vacate the premises. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari with preliminary injunction, arguing that the eviction order should not apply to them as they were not parties to the original ejectment case. They also raised an alleged agreement with the owner, Jose M. Ocampo, to allow them to retain the premises, and a separate action to compel Ocampo to honor this agreement. However, the Court notes the lack of a written contract and sworn admissions from the petitioners denying such an agreement, and cites previous rulings that sublessees are bound by eviction orders against their sublessors.
Issue(s)
Whether the sublessees, not being parties to the original ejectment case, are bound by the eviction order. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an injunction to prevent the execution of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the preliminary injunction is dissolved. Costs are in favor of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the sublessees are bound by the eviction order: The Court reiterated its previous rulings in De la Cruz v. Roxas and Gozon v. De la Rosa, and a recent case King Sing v. Geronimo et al., holding that sublessees are bound by an eviction order against the original tenants, even if they were not parties to the ejectment case. The Court reasoned that the order to vacate extends to all "tenants thereon," which includes sublessees occupying the premises. The principle of res judicata applies to the property and binds those in possession under the original tenants. On whether the petitioners are entitled to an injunction: The Court found no basis for granting an injunction. While one member of the Court issued a temporary injunction based on an alleged agreement between petitioners and Ocampo to retain the premises, the respondents denied this agreement. Crucially, sworn statements from three of the petitioners expressly admitted that no such contract was made by respondent Jose M. Ocampo. Furthermore, the petitioners were aware of the ejectment proceedings and had been heard in their motions without mentioning this alleged understanding. The Court also noted that petitioners had been given an extension of time to vacate, indicating fair treatment.
Main Doctrine
Sublessees who are not parties to an ejectment proceeding against the original tenants are still bound by the eviction order if they occupy the premises, and they cannot enjoin the execution of the judgment.