2008 Bar: Half-brothers Roscoe and Salvio inherited from their father a vast tract of unregistered land. Roscoe succeeded in gaining possession of the parcel of land in its entirety and transferring the tax declaration thereon in his name. roscoe sold the northern half to Bono, Salvio‘s cousin. Upon learning of the sale, Salvio asked Roscoe to convey the southern half to him. Roscoe refused as he even sold one-third of the southern half along the West to Carlo. Thereupon, Salvio filed an action for the reconveyance of the southern half against Roscoe only. Carlo was not impleaded. After filing his answer, Roscoe sold the middle third of the souther half to Nina. Salvio did not amend the complaint to implead Nina. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Roscoe to reconvey the entire southern half to Salvio. The judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution having been issued, the Sheriff required Roscoe, Carlo and Nina to vacate the southern half and yield possession thereof to Salvio as the prevailing party. Carlo and Nina refused, contending that they are not bound by the judgment as they are not parties to the case.
Is the contention tenable? Explain fully. (4%)
As a general rule, no stranger should be bound to a judgment in a proceeding of which he is not included as a party. Sec. 19, Rule 3 governs the transfer of interest pending litigation. The action may continue unless the court, upon motion, directs a person to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.
In the case at bar, Carlo cannot be made to be bound by the effects of the judgment. In fact, his becoming a co-owner came before the action was commenced. (
Asset Privatization Trust v. CA). On the other hand, Nina is a privy or a successor-in-interest; she is bound by the judgment even if she is not a party to the case (Sec. 19, Rule 3). A judgment is conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the case (Sec. 47, Rule 39;
Cabresos v. Tiro).
