GATCHALIAN,
LIWAYWAY
V. GATCHALIAN,
representing Present:
The Estate of
LEONOR VALONDO,
Petitioners, PUNO, J.,
Chairman,
-
versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,
TINGA,
and
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.,
Sixth Division, D.
VIDALLON- Members.
MAGTOLIS, Chairman,
R.A.
SALAZAR-FERNANDO
and E.F. Promulgated:
SUNDIAM, Members
and SPS.
EDGAR and AGNES
MERCADO, July 30, 2004
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This is a Rule 65 petition
for certiorari relating to the Court of Appeals Decision[1]
dated April 23, 2003 denying petitioner’s petition[2]
for injunction with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining Order and Resolution[3]
dated November 10, 2003 denying their Motion for Reconsideration.[4] Petitioners filed the aforesaid petition
before the Court of Appeals in view of two conflicting decisions of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 93-27726 and Civil Case No.
93-67377, involving the ownership and possession of a piece of property and the
house built thereon, originally belonging to one Leonor Valondo.
It appears that during
the lifetime of Leonor Valondo, she had three foster children, namely Ana Lisa,[5]
Michael[6]
and Ella, all surnamed Valondo.[7] They all lived together on the subject
property in Tondo, Manila. The land was
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 109253 in Leonor’s
name.
Leonor died on
November 21, 1989. Upon her death, Ana
Lisa executed an affidavit of adjudication[8]
consolidating the property in her name, as there were allegedly no other
compulsory heirs.
On the other hand, the siblings[9]
of Leonor Valondo, through their sister herein petitioner Liwayway Valondo
Gatchalian, filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration over the
Estate of Leonor Valondo. On August 6,
1990, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, granted the petition and
letters of administration were issued to petitioner Liwayway.[10] Liwayway demanded that spouses Ana Lisa
Valondo and Gerardo Cena surrender the properties, real and personal, of the
Estate. Apparently, their demand went
unheeded. The spouses Cena moved out of
the house in Tondo, Manila but did not hand over its possession of the property
to the Estate. Instead, the Cena
spouses leased the house to one Carol Ubaldo.
On October 20, 1992,
the spouses Cena succeeded in registering the land in Ana Lisa’s name without
the knowledge of Liwayway and the other legal heirs, the brothers of
Leonor. Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 207366 was issued in Ana Lisa’s name. The spouses Cena later decided to sell the property to herein
private respondents, spouses Edgar[11]
and Agnes Mercado. After conducting an
ocular inspection of the property, the Mercado spouses found out that it was occupied by Antonio
and Belinda Gatchalian (nephew and niece-in-law of the deceased Leonor
Valondo), while a portion thereof was rented out to a certain Ubaldo. According to Liwayway, she herself informed
the Mercados that the property was under her administration.[12] Before the consummation of the sale,
petitioner filed an adverse claim over the property. The adverse claim, as well as a notice of lis pendens, was
annotated on the back of Ana Lisa’s TCT.[13]
However, petitioner Belinda Gatchalian
withdrew the notice of lis pendens.
Hence, on February 1, 1993, the Cena spouses sold the subject property
to the Mercado spouses, who were able to register the property in their names
in TCT No. 208949. The Mercados
prepared and served a notice to vacate upon petitioners Gatchalian spouses who
occupied one-half of the property.
On August 31, 1993, the Mercado
spouses filed against the Gatchalian spouses a case for recovery of possession
and ownership with damages and issuance of writ of possession before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29, docketed as Civil Case No.
93-67377. On February 26, 1999, Branch
29 ruled in favor of the Mercado spouses, ordering
the Gatchalian spouses
to vacate the property and turn over the
possession thereof to
the spouses Mercado and to pay
rentals and damages.[14] Branch 29 found that the Mercado spouses
were purchasers in good faith, there being no defect in their title as well as
that of the previous owner, Ana Lisa Valondo Cena. Petitioners admitted that they had no title to the property and
were occupying it only “under color of title” as nephew and niece and heirs of
the late Leonor Valondo. Petitioners
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 67122. However, petitioners
failed to file their appellant’s brief so their appeal was considered abandoned
and the case dismissed on May 4, 2001.
The decision became final and executory and Entry of Judgment was made
on June 6, 2001.
Meanwhile, on
September 24, 1993, or just over a month from the filing by the spouses Mercado
of their case for recovery of ownership and possession of the subject property,
the Estate of Leonor Valondo, through petitioner Liwayway, filed a case for
reconveyance of title and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 26. Named defendants were the
spouses Ana Lisa and Gerardo Cena, the spouses Edgardo and Agnes Mercado, and
the Registry of Deeds of Manila. The
complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 93-67726. On March 17, 1999, Branch 26 rendered its decision.[15] It found that defendant Ana Lisa Cena is not
the true and genuine legal heir of the late Leonor Valondo, as she was only a
ward or foster child. Hence, the
Affidavit of Adjudication as sole heir she executed was an absolute nullity and
the transfer of title from the late Leonor Valondo to her was also null and
void. The spouses Edgardo and Agnes
Mercado were buyers in bad faith since it had been shown that they had previous
knowledge of the defect of the title of their vendor Ana Lisa Cena. Branch 26 declared petitioner Estate of
Leonor Valondo to be the lawful owner of the subject property and ordered
cancellation of the titles in the name of respondent spouses Mercado and
payment of damages. Respondent spouses
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.
The appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69186, was declared submitted for
decision on February 14, 2002 and is still pending before the First Division.[16]
The Mercados moved to execute the
decision in Civil Case No. 93-67377.
This was granted and writ of execution issued on June 28, 2002.[17] On July 1, 2002, a Sheriff’s Notice to
Vacate and Notice of Levy and Sale was served upon petitioners.[18] The petitioners failed to vacate the
premises and to pay the rental fees and damages; hence, the personal properties
of the petitioners were attached and were set for public auction on July 9,
2002.[19]
Petitioners moved to
quash the writ of execution but this was denied on July 5, 2002.[20]
Thereafter,
petitioners then filed the petition for injunction before the Court of Appeals
on July 9, 2002 to enjoin the execution.[21] The appellate court, in the assailed Decision
of April 23, 2003, dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[22]
According to the Court
of Appeals, a writ of injunction cannot enjoin the final and executory judgment
rendered in Civil Case No. 93-67377.
The said judgment had long become final and executory on June 6, 2001
and a corresponding entry of judgment had already issued thereon, the Mercados’ ownership of the property and the directive
for petitioners to surrender possession thereof had become final and could no
longer be questioned. It had become res
judicata. As it had become final
and executory, respondents, as the prevailing party, could have it executed as
a matter of right and the issuance of the writ of execution becomes a
ministerial duty of the court.
Petitioners moved for
reconsideration but it was denied for lack of merit on November 10, 2003.[23] Hence, petitioners filed this Petition
for Certiorari.
Petitioners now allege
that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the
petition for injunction. Essentially
they argue that there is a need to issue the injunction because of the pendency
of the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 69186 (Civil Case No. 93-67726). Allegedly, there is still a question as to
the ownership of the subject property.
They do not agree that the issue of ownership had been settled in Civil
Case No. 93-67377. Rather, they claim
that the issue of ownership was not discussed or touched directly in Civil Case
No. 93-67377 filed by the Mercado spouses.
The dispositive portion of the decision spoke only of turning over
possession of the property and did not make a pronouncement as to the issue of
ownership. On the other hand, the
decision in Civil Case No. 93-67726 discussed the issue of ownership more
substantially and directly.
Petitioners’ superior right of ownership over the property was
purportedly clearly established in Civil Case No. 93-67726.
We dismiss the
petition.
Petitioners pursued
the wrong mode of appeal in filing this Petition for Certiorari. As they are questioning a decision of the
Court of Appeals which finally disposed of their Petition for Injunction, they
should have filed a petition for review and not a petition for certiorari. We have time and again stated that
certiorari is not available where the proper remedy is an appeal in due course.[24] In this case, such remedy has lapsed for the
failure of petitioners to take the appeal within the reglementary period.
In any event, we find that the Court of Appeals committed no grave
abuse of discretion in upholding the final and executory nature of the decision
in Civil Case No. 93-67377. Petitioners failed to
demonstrate that the assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals constitute a
whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment.
It should be noted
that the parties in Civil Case No. 93-67377 were only the spouses Edgar and
Agnes Mercado, as plaintiffs, and the spouses Antonio and Belinda Gatchalian and
“all persons claiming rights under them,” as defendants.[25] The Estate of Leonor Valondo, represented by
petitioner Liwayway V. Gatchalian, was not a party. Hence, while the ownership of the subject property was settled in
Civil Case No. 93-67377 and had become
final due to petitioners’ abandonment of their appeal, the same is final and
executory only insofar as the parties therein is concerned. With the failure of petitioner spouses to
file the appellant’s brief with the Court of Appeals, there is in effect no
more appeal involving the decision so that the same had become final and
executory. Once a judgment becomes final, all the issues between the parties
(in this particular case, the Mercado spouses and the Gatchalian spouses) are
deemed resolved and laid to rest.[26] We can no longer disturb the determination
of the issue of ownership in the decision in Civil Case No. 93-67377. All that
remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right, pursuant
to Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, the issuance of
which is the trial court’s ministerial duty.[27]
It should be noted
that the judgment is effective only against the supposed shares of petitioners
Mercado in the subject property. The share of the other legal heir, petitioner
Liwayway Gatchalian, is not affected. Her share which is part of the Estate of
Leonor Valondo still has to be decided in the other Civil Case No. 93-67726.
With respect to the Gatchalian spouses, even if they base their claim for an injunction on their alleged right of ownership to one-half of what they expect to be the favorable disposition in Civil Case No. 93-67726 for the Estate of
Leonor Valondo, the fact remains that the controversy still remains to be determined by the Court of Appeals. It is the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction that injunction, whether preliminary or final, is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Thus:
An injunction will not issue to protect
a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act
which does not give rise to a cause of action.
The complainant’s right or title, moreover, must be clear and
unquestioned, for equity, as a rule, will not take cognizance of suits to
establish title, and will not lend its preventive aid by injunction where the
complainant’s title or right is doubtful or disputed. The possibility of irreparable damage, without proof of violation
of an actual existing right, is not ground for an injunction, being mere damnum
absque injuria.[28]
In any event, sound
legal practice requires us to respect the finality of judgments. At the risk of occasional errors, the
judgment of the courts must become final at some definite date fixed by law.
Sound legal practice
requires us to respect the finality of judgments. At the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of the courts must
become final at some definite date fixed by law.[29]
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the petition is dismissed.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chairman
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairman, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
HILARIO
G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice
[1]Penned by Justice Delilah
Vidallon-Magtolis and concurred in by Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and
Edgardo F. Sundiam of the Sixth Division; Rollo, pp. 85-92.
[4]Id. at 93-101.
[5]Also referred to as Liza.
[6]Also referred to as Mickel.
[7]By the time the complaints before the
Regional Trial court were filed, Ana Lisa was already married to Gerardo Cena,
while Michael and Ella were still minors.
The three were brought up by Leonor Valondo as her own children,
although without the benefit of legal adoption. See Rollo, p. 35. However, according to the decision in Civil
Case No. 93-67377, Ana Lisa is an illegitimate child of the late Leonor
Valondo, and Ana Lisa also presented an Affidavit of Acknowledgment executed by
Leonor Valondo in her favor. See Rollo,
p. 47.
[9]Leonor Valondo’s other siblings, aside
from Liwayway Valondo are her brothers Roberto dela Cruz and Ceferino Valondo; Ibid.
[10]Rollo, pp. 35-37. According to the decision in Civil Case No.
93-67377, Liwayway Gatchalian was appointed adminsitratrix of the Estate of
Ella Valondo. See Rollo, p. 44.
[14]By Judge Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla; Id.
at 43-48. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: “WHEREFORE. In view of the foregoing,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs EDGAR and AGNES MERCADO
and against defendants who are hereby ordered to peacefully turn over the
apartment unit they are occupying located at No. 1831 Tecson De Guia Street,
Tondo, Manila, to herein plaintiffs, and pay the following sums: 1. The amount
of P3,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use of the
property since January 1993 until they vacate the premises, with interest at
the legal rate from the time this suit was instituted; 2. The amount of P30,000.00
as moral damages; The sum of P25,000.00
as attorney’s fees plus the amount of P1,500.00 for every court
appearance; 4. Costs of the suit. SO
ORDERED.”
[15]By Judge Guillermo L. Loja, Sr.; Rollo,
pp. 39-42. The dispositive portion of
the decision states: “WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the
plaintiff, (sic) cause of action fully established and hereby renders
judgment follows (sic): (a) Finding the plaintiff, Estate of the late
Leonor Valondo, represented by Liwayway V. Gatchalian, Administratrix, to be
the lawful owner of the subject property located at no. 1831 G. Tecson Street,
Tondo, Manila; (b) Ordering the defendant, Register of Deeds of Manila, to
cancel TCT No. 208949 in the name of defendants, spouses Edgardo and Agnes
Mercado; (c) Ordering the same defendant, Register of Deeds of Manila, to issue
in lieu thereof another TCT to cover the same subject property in favor of and
in the name of Estate of the late Leonor Valondo, represented by Adminstratrix
Liwayway V. Gatchalian; (d) Ordering the defendants, spouses Ana Lisa and
Gerardo Cena, and spouses Edgardo and Agnes Cena, jointly and severally, to pay
the plaintiff the sum of (50,000) as and by way of attorney’s fees; and (e) To
pay the costs of this suit. SO
ORDERED.”
[24]Government Service Insurance System v.
Olisa, G.R. No. 126874, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 421, 425.