Mayugba v. Reyes (G.R. No. 230846, August 14, 2017)


CASE DIGEST: [G.R. No. 230846, August 14, 2017]. SPOUSES DANILO AND ROSIELENITA MAYUGBA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RONALD DEL ROSARIO VS. SPOUSES WILLIE AND ERLINDA REYES AND WILSON REYES.

The petition assigns two errors, namely: 1) respondent Wilson Reyes (Wilson) should have not been allowed to avail of the remedy of annulment of judgment; and 2) since Wilson was a mere third party claimant in Civil Case No. C-21842, he is not entitled to seek any relief from court.

The Court saw NO MERIT in petitioners' arguments. First, it is inutile to question the remedy availed of by Wilson since the annulment of judgment granted by the CA was affirmed by no less than the Supreme Court and the decision therein had long become final. Second, the CA was correct in holding that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 123, Caloocan City committed grave abuse of discretion in not allowing the restitution of the subject property to Wilson. In applying Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the CA committed no reversible error, as the said provision envisions a scenario such as the one at bench, where a party affected may seek restitution of a property previously taken away from him by virtue of a void judgment.

The Court, after a judicious appraisal of the allegations and arguments raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, further resolved to DENY the same for failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution dated July 21, 2016 and March 22, 2017, respectively, in CAG.R.SP No. 141309.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution dated July 21, 2016 and March 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 141309.

Popular Posts