FACTS: The subject property is a house and lot at No. 48 Scout Madrian St., Diliman, Quezon City, formerly owned by Yee L. Ching. Yee L. Ching is married to Emilia M. Ching (spouses Ching), Muoz's sister. Muoz' lived at the subject property with the spouses Ching. As consideration for the valuable services rendered by Muoz' to the spouses Ching's family, Yee L. Ching agreed to have the subject property transferred to Muoz. By virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, seemingly executed by Yee L. Ching in favor of Muoz, the latter acquired a Transfer Certificate of Title. However, in a Deed of Absolute Sale Muoz' purportedly sold the subject property to her sister, Emilia M. Ching. As a result, TCT No. 186306 was cancelled and TCT No. 186366 was issued in Emilia M. Ching's name.Emilia M. Ching, in a Deed of Absolute Sale sold the subject property to spouses Go Song and Tan Sio Kien (spouses Go), hence, TCT No. 186366 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Go's names.
Muoz registered her adverse claim to the subject property on TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go.uoz filed a complaint for the annulment of the deeds of absolute sale and the cancellation of TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Go's names, and the restoration and revival of TCT No. 186306 in Muoz's name. Muoz caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go.
The spouses Go obtained a loan of P500,000.00 from BPI Family Savings Bank When the spouses Go defaulted on the payment of their loan, BPI Family foreclosed the mortgage. BPI Family executed in favor of the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses Chan) a Deed of Absolute Sale. Consequently, TCT No. RT-54376 (370364) in the name of BPI Family was cancelled and TCT No. 53297 was issued in the spouses Chan's names on January 28, 1991.
G.R. No. 142676
Muoz' instituted before the MeTC a Complaint for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut.Muoz' alleged in her complaint that she had been in actual and physical possession of the subject property since January 10, 1994.Muoz prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut and all persons claiming right under them to vacate the subject property.
The MeTC adjudged that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was already executed against the spouses Chan and there was, indeed, a turn-over of possession of the subject property to Muoz'. Accordingly, the MeTC granted Muoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, restoring possession of the subject property to Muoz.
According to the RTC-Branch 88, the MeTC failed to distinguish the issue of finality of the judgment of the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 from the assertions of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut that the spouses Chan are not covered by said final judgment because they are not successors-in-interest, assigns, or privies of the spouses Go and they are purchasers of the subject property in good faith.
The Court of Appeals held that the MeTC should have dismissed the forcible entry case on the ground of "lis pendens"; that the spouses Chan were not parties in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and impleading them only in the execution stage of said case vitiated their right to due process; that the order of the RTC-Branch 95 involving the spouses Chan in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was null and void, considering that they are strangers to the case, and they are innocent purchasers for value of the subject property; that the notice of lis pendens was already cancelled from the spouses Go's certificate of title at the time they mortgaged the subject property to BPI Family; and that the title to the subject property was already free of any and all liens and encumbrances when the spouses Chan purchased the said property from BPI Family.
G.R. No. 146718
Meanwhile, Muoz' filed before the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 a Motion to Cite the Register of Deeds in Contempt of Court for the failure of the Register of Deeds to restore Muoz's TCT. The Register of Deeds could not cancel the spouses Chan's TCT No. 53297, the subsisting certificate of title over the subject property, absent any authority or directive for him to do so.
The RTC-Branch 95 denied all of Muoz's motions.The RTC-Branch 95 was of the view that Samuel Go Chan's title should be litigated in another forum, not in Civil Case No. Q-28580 where the judgment had already become final and executory.The RTC-Branch 95 also stressed that since the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 had long become final and executory, it could no longer be changed or amended except for clerical error or mistake.
Attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC-Branch 95 in issuing its Orders Muoz' filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, which was remanded to the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC-Branch 95 that the spouses Chan could not be covered by the alias writ of execution considering that they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-28580.The cancellation of TCT No. 53297 in the spouses Chan's names could not be done apart from a separate action exclusively for that matter.The spouses Chan are deemed buyers in good faith and for value as the certificate of title delivered to them by BPI Family was free from any liens or encumbrances or any mark that would have raised the spouses Chan's suspicions.
ISSUE: Is Muoz the rightful owner of the subject property?HELD: G.R. No. 146718: Civil Case No. Q-28580 is an action for reconveyance of real property. An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.
Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan.The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them.No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court.In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto.
Although the RTC-Branch 95 had declared with finality in Civil Case No. Q-28580 that the titles of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go were null and void, there is yet no similar determination on the titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan.The question of whether or not the titles to the subject property of BPI Family and the spouses Chan are null and void, since they are merely the successors-in-interest, assigns, or privies of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, ultimately depends on the issue of whether or not BPI Family and the spouses Chan obtained their titles to the subject property in bad faith, i.e., with notice of Muoz's adverse claim and knowledge of the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-28580.The latter is a factual issue on which we cannot rule in the present petition, not only because we are not a trier of facts, but more importantly, because it was not among the issues raised and tried in Civil Case No. Q-28580.
Muoz's legal remedy is to directly assail in a separate action the validity of the certificates of title of BPI Family and the spouses Chan.
G.R. No. 142676: There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property. Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the RTC-Branch 88 erred in ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286 even before completion of the proceedings before the MeTC.At the time said case was ordered dismissed by RTC-Branch 88, the MeTC had only gone so far as holding a hearing on and eventually granting Muoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
Nonetheless, even though the peculiar circumstances extant herein do not justify the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286, they do require limiting pro hac vice the reliefs the MeTC may accord to Muoz' in the event that she is able to successfully prove forcible entry by Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut into the subject property (i.e., that the sheriff actually turned-over to Muoz' the possession of the subject property on January 10, 1994, and that she was deprived of such possession by Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut on February 2, 1994 by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth). Taking into account our ruling in G.R. No. 146718 - that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 does not extend to the spouses Chan, who were not impleaded as parties to the said case - the MeTC is precluded from granting to Muoz' relief, whether preliminary or final, that will give her possession of the subject property.Otherwise, we will be perpetuating the wrongful execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580.Based on the same reason, Muoz' can no longer insist on the reinstatement of the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 granting a preliminary mandatory injunction that puts her in possession of the subject property during the course of the trial. Muoz' though may recover damages if she is able to prove wrongful deprivation of possession of the subject property from February 2, 1994 until the finality of this decision in G.R. No. 146718.
