ROGELIO
(ROGER) PANOTES (thru ARACELI BUMATAY, as successor-in-interest),
Petitioner, -
versus - CITY TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 154739 Present: PUNO, c.j., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For
our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
This
case stemmed from a complaint filed with the National Housing Authority (NHA) in
April 1979 by Rogelio (Roger) Panotes, petitioner, then
president of the Provident Village Homeowners Association, Inc., against
Provident Securities Corporation (PROSECOR), owner-developer of the
During
the proceedings before the NHA, an ocular inspection showed that the
subdivision has no open space. The NHA found, however, that Block 40, with an
area of 22,916 square meters, could be utilized as open space. Thus, in its Resolution dated
In
a letter of the same date, then NHA Acting General Manager Antonio A. Fernando ordered
PROSECOR to “provide Block 40 of the subdivision as open space.”
PROSECOR
was served copies of the NHA Resolution and the letter on
Considering
that PROSECOR did not appeal from the NHA Resolution, it became final and
executory.
When
Panotes filed a motion for execution of the NHA Resolution,
it was found that the records of the case were “mysteriously missing.” Hence, his motion “was provisionally dismissed”
without prejudice.
Meanwhile,
PROSECOR sold to City Townhouse Development Corporation (CTDC), respondent, several
lots in the subdivision. Among the lots sold were those comprising Block 40. CTDC
was unaware of the NHA Resolution ordering PROSECOR to have Block 40 utilized as
open space of
Eventually,
Panotes was succeeded by Araceli
Bumatay as president of the Provident Village
Homeowners Association, Inc. On
In
its answer, CTDC averred, among others, that (1) Araceli
Bumatay has no legal personality to file the action
for revival of judgment; (2) there is a pending litigation between CTDC and
PROSECOR involving Block 40; and (3) other entities like the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas
and Provident Savings Bank have existing liens over Block 40.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Block 40 (with an area of 22,916 square meters) of the Subdivision Plan Pcs-5683 of the Provident Villages located at Marikina, Metro Manila as the legally mandated “open space” for said subdivision project; and the Register of Deeds for Marikina is hereby directed to cause the annotation of this fact on the corresponding Torrens Title which describes and covers said open space; said area to be reserved and utilized exclusively in the manner and for the purposes provided for under P.D. N0. 957 and P.D. No. 1216.[4]
Furthermore, let a Cease and Desist Order be, as it is hereby, issued against respondent Provident Securities Corp. and City Townhouse Development Corporation, restraining said respondents, and all persons, agents, or other associations or corporate entities acting on their behalf, from asserting or perpetrating any or further acts of dominion or claim over said Block 40, Pcs-5683, the open space allocated and reserved for the Provident Villages in Marikina, Metro Manila.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On
appeal to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, Arbiter Bunagan’s
Decision was affirmed with modification in the sense that CTDC has the right to
recover from PROSECOR “what it has
lost.”
After
its motion for reconsideration was denied, CTDC then interposed an appeal to
the Office of the President (OP). On
CTDC
then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 52621.
In
a Resolution[5] dated
CTDC
filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by Bumatay.
On
On
On
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, finding merit in this petition for review, the assailed Decision of the Office of the President dated February 10, 1999, together with its Resolution dated February 14, 1999 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered dismissing HLRB Case No. REM-071790-4052 (NHA Case No. 4175; HLRB Case No. REM-A-1089). Costs against the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
The
basic issue for our resolution is whether the NHA Resolution dated
An
action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing
the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage
of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing
party. It is not intended to re-open any
issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor’s case nor the propriety or
correctness of the first judgment.[6]
Here,
the original judgment or the NHA Resolution sought to be revived was between
Rogelio Panotes and PROSECOR, not between petitioner Araceli Bumatay and respondent CTDC.
In
maintaining that CTDC is bound by the NHA Resolution, petitioner claims that
CTDC is the successor-in-interest of PROSECOR and, therefore, assumed the
obligations of the latter to provide an open space for
CTDC
purchased from PROSECOR Block 40 in the said village, not as an owner-developer
like PROSECOR, but as an ordinary buyer of lots. Even after the sale, CTDC did not become an
owner-developer. The Deed of Sale
executed by CTDC, as buyer, and PROSECOR, as seller, shows that the subject
matter of the sale is the unsold lots comprising Block 40 within the subdivision
to CTDC. The contract does not include
the transfer of rights of PROSECOR as owner-developer of the said subdivision. Clearly, there is no basis to conclude that
CTDC is the successor-in-interest of PROSECOR.
It
bears stressing that when CTDC bought Block 40, there was no annotation on PROSECOR’s title showing that the property is encumbered. In fact, the NHA Resolution was not annotated
thereon. CTDC is thus a buyer in good
faith and for value, and as such, may not be deprived of the ownership of Block
40. Verily, the NHA Resolution may not
be enforced against CTDC.
Section
2 of P.D. No. 1216 provides:
Section 2. Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 31. Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open Spaces.
– The owner or developer of a subdivision shall provide adequate roads, alleys
and sidewalks. For subdivision projects of
one (1) hectare or more, the owner shall reserve thirty percent (30%) of the
gross area for open space.
xxx xxx xxx.
Clearly, providing an open space
within the subdivision remains to be the obligation of PROSECOR, the
owner-developer and the real party-in-interest in the case for revival of
judgment. As aptly held by the Court
of Appeals:
Quintessentially, the real party-in-interest in the revival of NHA Case
No. 4175 is PROSECOR and not CTDC.
PROSECOR was the lone defendant or respondent in that case against whom
judgment was rendered. To insist that
CTDC is a successor-in-interest of PROSECOR may have some truth if we are
talking about the ownership of the lots sold by PROSECOR in favor of CTDC as a
result of a civil action between the two.
But then, to hold CTDC as the successor-in-interest of PROSECOR as the
developer of the subdivision, is far from realty. CTDC is simply on the same footing as any lot
buyer-member of PVHIA. x x x.
Furthermore,
strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by the judgment rendered by a
court. It will not divest the rights of
a party who has not and never been a party to a litigation. Execution of a judgment can be issued only
against a party to the action and not against one who did not have his day in
court.[7]
WHEREFORE,
we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52621. Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 37-48. Per Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino.
[2]
[3] The Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers Protective Decree, promulgated on
[4] The Decree is entitled “Defining ‘Open Space’ in Residential Subdivisions and Amending Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 Requiring Subdivision Owners To Provide Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks, and Reserve Open Space For Parks or Recreational Use.”
[5] Rollo, pp. 145-146.
[6] Azotea
v. Blanco, 85 Phil. 90 (1949); Filipinas Investment
and Finance Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos.
66059-60, December 4, 1989, 179 SCRA 729.
[7] St. Dominic Corporation v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-70623,