Case Digest (G.R. No. 79425)
Facts:
Cresenciana Atun Esquivel, and Lamberto Esquivel v. Hon. Angel M. Alegre, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch II, 5th Judicial Region, Legaspi City and Teotimo Alaurin, Visitacion Magno & Sps. Wilfredo Encinas & Patrocinia Encinas, G.R. No. 79425, April 17, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.The dispute traces to an ejectment action (City Court of Legaspi, Civil Case No. 990) in which private respondents Teotimo Alaurin and Visitacion Magno prevailed over petitioners Cresenciana and Lamberto Esquivel. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of First Instance and by the Court of Appeals, and the ejectment judgment finally became executory on July 25, 1973; efforts by petitioners to reverse it in the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. L-38826) did not prosper at that time, but during the Supreme Court proceeding the parties filed a Joint Manifestation agreeing to suspend certiorari and to have Civil Case No. 4883 (the reconveyance/nullity action filed by petitioners on August 24, 1973) tried on the merits, with the Supreme Court dismissing the certiorari petition and directing the trial court (Branch II, Court of First Instance of Albay) to expedite trial and to observe the parties’ agreement (promulgated June 27, 1975).
The Court of First Instance of Albay, Branch II, dismissed Civil Case No. 4883 and dissolved the preliminary injunction in a decision of October 29, 1975. Petitioners appealed but, after delays and their motion to implead third parties, they filed a motion to admit a supplemental complaint impleading spouses Wilfredo and Patrocinia Encinas as supplemental defendants; the trial court admitted the supplemental complaint and on July 31, 1979 rendered a supplemental judgment declaring the Encinas spouses to be successors-in-interest of Alaurin and Magno, stating that “whatever is the result of the appealed case shall be legally binding upon them.”
Private respondents sought certiorari in the Court of Appeals to set aside the supplemental ruling as to the Encinases; the Court of Appeals dismissed that petition on November 18, 1982. Petitioners’ appeal of the original October 29, 1975 dismissal was docketed as AC-G.R. CV No. 01896 before the Court of Appeals which, on March 10, 1986, affirmed the trial court; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied April 14, 1986, and their subsequent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 74339) was denied on July 2, 1986, with a final denial on September 17, 1986, the decision becoming final and executory October 6, 1986.
After the appellate affirmance became final, the trial court issued an order (October 2, 1986) directing issuance of a writ of execution as the decision had become final and executory. On May 23, 1987 petitioner Cresenciana Atun, claiming to be the prevailing party, took possession of the property. Private respondents filed a motion for contempt on May 25, 1987. The trial court denied that contempt motion on June 5, 1987. Meanwhile, the City Court of Legaspi (Branch X) issued a restraining order on June 8, 1987 restoring the status quo and ordered police assistance on June 10, 1987.
On July 3, 1987 petitioners moved in the trial court to (1) compel reconveyance and cancellation of TCT No. 311 for alleged fraud and (2) allow immediate possession pursuant to the parties’ earlier joint manifestation; the trial court denied the motion ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the decision rendered on the supplemental complaint in Civil Case No. 4883 amend, reverse, or otherwise modify the earlier original decision of the same branch of the Court so as to affect the finality or content of the orig...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)