Case Digest (G.R. No. 192285)
Facts:
Mateo Encarnacion (Deceased), Substituted by His Heirs, Namely: Elsa Deplian‑Encarnacion, Krizza Marie D. Encarnacion, Loreta Encarnacion, Carmelita E. Staderman, Corazon S. Encarnacion, Rizalina Encarnacion‑Parong, Victoria Encarnacion‑Dula, Maria Helen Encarnacion‑Day, Teresita Encarnacion‑Manalang, George Encarnacion, Mary Mitchie E. Edwardson, Ernesto Encarnacion, Mateo Encarnacion, Jr., and Grace Wagner v. Thomas Johnson, G.R. No. 192285, July 11, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., wrote the decision.On October 6, 2000, Thomas Johnson (respondent) sued spouses Narvin Edwarson and Mary Mitchie Edwarson (also known as Mary Mitchie Encarnacion) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for breach of contract, alleging a fraudulent vehicle‑leasing investment scheme. The British Columbia court issued a Mareva injunction (ex juris) and, on February 26, 2001, entered a default judgment against Narvin and Mary for C$380,431 plus interest and costs and later awarded aggravated damages. The British Columbia court authorized enforcement abroad.
On February 24, 2003, respondent filed in Branch 72, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City an action for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment, simultaneously seeking pauper status. The RTC conditionally granted pauper status and, on March 5, 2003, issued an order restraining Narvin and Mary from disposing of assets and directed annotation of that order on titles and tax declarations of properties allegedly owned by Narvin, Mary, and Mateo. Publication of summons followed; Narvin and Mary defaulted and the RTC rendered recognition consistent with the British Columbia judgment on December 1, 2003.
The RTC issued a writ of execution (March 30, 2004). Respondent moved to modify the writ to include properties annotated as belonging to Mateo Encarnacion; the RTC issued an amended writ (September 9, 2004) and, on February 17, 2005, further amended it to expressly levy properties registered in Mateo’s name. A public auction on June 23, 2004 resulted in a Certificate of Sale showing respondent as highest bidder (P10,000,000 bid) for several parcels, some listed under tax declarations in Mary’s name. A subsequent auction on November 29, 2006 produced another Certificate of Sale in respondent’s favor covering several titled lots; the RTC later consolidated titles in respondent’s name.
Mateo filed an Affidavit of Third‑Party Claim on January 17, 2005, asserting ownership of levied parcels, but the record is unclear as to the RTC action on that affidavit. More than two years later, on September 10, 2007, Mateo (later substituted by heirs after his death) sought annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 100483), alleging lack of jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud, deprivation of due process, improper service by publication, and wrongful levy and sale of properties not belonging to the judgment debtors. Mateo admitted he lacked standing to challenge the recognition proceeding itself and limited his attack to the February 17, 2005 Order effectuating the levy on properties he claimed.
The CA denied the petition on August 12, 2009, holding (inter alia) that: the RTC had jurisdiction to recognize the foreign judgment; by filing a third‑party claim Mateo submitted to RTC jurisdiction; annulment under Rule 47 was improper because the February 17, 2005 Order was not a final order and other remedies (e.g., motion to quash writ, Rule 65 certiorari) were available; and Mateo was barred by estoppel and laches and had previously quitclaimed interests to Mary. The CA denied reconsideration on May 13, 2010. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Before the Court, petitioners reiterated that annulment was proper due to lack of jurisd...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 the proper remedy for a third‑party claimant whose properties were levied and sold under execution in an action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment?
- May an alien (respondent) acquire private lands by virtue of an execution sale ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)