G.R. No. 214303 - Gonzalez, Jr. vs. Pena

Petitioner Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking restoration of his ownership over shares issued by respondent Alabang Country Club, Inc. (ACCI).
In a Decision dated 28 May 1999, the RTC of Bago City held petitioner liable for agency fees and damages amounting to P28.5 million.
During the pendency of the appeal, execution was ordered, which resulted in the sale of petitioner’s ACCI shares to Magdaleno M. PeAa on 16 October 2000.
Subsequently, on 2 May 2001, by means of a private sale, PeAa transferred the subject shares to Arsenia Vera.

On 19 October 2011, this Court in Urban Bank, Inc. v. PeAa vacated an earlier RTC decision (28 May 1999) and declared the execution pending appeal null and void.
The 2011 decision explicitly directed that, in cases of executed properties, if actual restitution is impossible, the execution purchaser must pay the full value of the property at the time of seizure with accrued interest.
Pursuant to this directive, the properties, including the ACCI shares, were to be restored to the true owners, namely Urban Bank and its officers as well as petitioner and his co-petitioners.

Petitioner moved for execution seeking the restoration of his actual ACCI shares.
The RTC, however, based on its Omnibus Resolution dated 30 April 2014, ruled that the sale of shares to Vera was valid since she was deemed an innocent purchaser for value.
Concluding that actual restitution of the shares was impossible due to their transfer to a third party, the RTC ordered PeAa to pay petitioner the full market value of the shares instead.
Similar principles were applied in cases involving other properties of Urban Bank and its directors, where the RTC denied the restoration of actual ownership.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated 17 September 2014.

Petitioner argued that the RTC failed to adhere to the directive of the 2011 decision mandating the restoration of actual ownership instead of merely awarding monetary compensation.
He maintained that since the execution sale was null and void, the subsequent transfer to Vera could not extinguish his right to the actual shares, which could be restored via proper entries in the club’s stock and transfer books.
Respondents, including ACCI and PeAa, contended that the shares were validly transferred to an innocent purchaser, thereby negating the possibility of restoring the original physical property.
Respondent Vera did not file any comments with the Court despite notice.

Whether the RTC faithfully complied with the directive of the 2011 decision requiring actual restitution of property executed pending appeal.

Was it proper for the RTC to refuse restoration of the actual ACCI shares on the ground that they had already been transferred to a third party?

Whether the private sale to Arsenia Vera, deemed valid by the RTC, could stand when the underlying execution sale was declared null and void by this Court.

Whether characterizing the actual restitution of movable property (ACCI shares) as “impossible” is legally tenable given that such shares can be restored by proper administrative recording.