G.R. No. 125560 - Baggenstos vs. Court of Appeals

On September 6, 1991, private respondent Josefino de Guzman filed a complaint against petitioner Eliza Francisco Baggenstos to collect P85,000, representing the unpaid balance for the renovation of a house in Ponderosa Heights, Antipolo, Rizal. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2143.

Baggenstos failed to file an answer within the reglementary period, leading the trial court to declare her in default. The court allowed De Guzman to present evidence ex parte and rendered a judgment in his favor on December 27, 1991, ordering Baggenstos to pay P85,610.72 with legal interest, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
On April 3, 1992, the trial court issued a writ of execution after the judgment became final and executory. A parcel of land registered under Baggenstos' name (TCT No. 171720) was levied and sold at public auction to Pacifico Magno, Jr. for P153,210.72, the total amount of the judgment.

Baggenstos claimed that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her due to improper service of summons, rendering the default judgment void. She also argued that the sheriff mistakenly attempted to enforce the writ of possession against her other property (TCT No. 96923), where her house stood, instead of the vacant lot (TCT No. 171720) that was sold at auction.
Magno filed a petition to compel the surrender of the duplicate certificate of title and for the issuance of a writ of possession. The trial court granted Magno’s petition, ruling that substituted service of summons was valid and that the court had jurisdiction over Baggenstos.

On June 19, 1995, the trial court issued a writ of possession, and the sheriff attempted to enforce it. However, the sheriff reported that the main gate and door of the house were locked, preventing him from placing Magno in possession.
Magno filed a motion for a break-open order, which the trial court granted. Baggenstos filed a motion for reconsideration, clarifying that the writ of possession should only apply to the vacant lot (TCT No. 171720) and not the lot with her house (TCT No. 96923). Magno’s counsel agreed with Baggenstos’ clarification.

On November 15, 1995, the trial court amended its March 30, 1995 order, specifying that the writ of possession applied only to TCT No. 171720.
Baggenstos filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgments, Orders, and Writs with Damages before the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the trial court’s orders and writs insofar as they affected her lot under TCT No. 96923. The Court of Appeals denied her petition for procedural defects and lack of merit.

Finality of Judgment: A final and executory judgment can no longer be contested except in specific instances, none of which applied in this case.
Mootness: The case became moot when the execution proceedings were completed, and the property was transferred to Magno. Courts will not rule on issues that no longer present a justiciable controversy.
Proper Remedy: Errors in execution proceedings should be addressed through appeal or a special civil action, not a petition for annulment of judgment.
Role of Lawyers: Lawyers must avoid filing frivolous petitions that clog court dockets and delay the administration of justice.