Title
Montilla, Jr. vs. G Holdings, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 194995
Decision Date
Nov 18, 2021
Montilla, Jr. sought to amend a writ of execution to include GHI, a non-party, as liable for MMIC’s obligations. SC denied, citing due process and lack of evidence to pierce GHI’s corporate veil.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194995)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the case
    • On April 12, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City, Branch 61, issued a decision in Civil Case No. 142 (96-5488) granting Emilio D. Montilla, Jr.'s Demanda for Complimiento de Contrato, Rendecion de Cuentas con Daños y Perjuicios (Compliance for Contracts, Submission of Accounts with Damages).
    • The RTC declared the rescission of the "1938 Contract" involving several parties, including San Remigio Mines Inc., Real Copper, and Marinduque.
    • It ordered defendants to render an accounting and deliver specific shares and mining rights to Montilla, Jr. The decision also declared certain contracts null and void based on fraud.
    • The decision imposed moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and cost of the suit.
  • Execution proceedings and controversy
    • Montilla, Jr. moved for the execution of the judgment, resulting in the issuance of a writ of execution.
    • A Sheriff’s Report indicated that the properties involved were no longer owned by Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC), but by G Holdings, Inc. (GHI), which bought the properties through a foreclosure sale.
    • Montilla, Jr. then moved for an amended writ of execution to include properties belonging to San Remigio Mines Inc. and its assigns, including GHI.
    • The RTC denied the motion on July 9, 2004, ruling that GHI was not a party to the original case and enforcing the decision against it would violate due process and unlawfully modify the final judgment.
    • Montilla, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in November 2004.
  • Court of Appeals (CA) proceedings
    • Montilla, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari to the CA contesting the RTC’s amended order.
    • The CA denied the petition in a decision dated July 30, 2010, affirming the RTC’s ruling that GHI, not being a party, could not be bound by the judgment. The CA rejected Montilla’s assertion that GHI and MMIC were the same entity.
    • Montilla moved for reconsideration, arguing that GHI was a transferee pendente lite and a mere alter ego of Maricalum, warranting piercing of the corporate veil. The CA denied the motion in December 2010.
  • Petition to the Supreme Court
    • Montilla, Jr. elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
    • He reiterated that GHI, by acquiring Maricalum’s mining claims and assets, succeeded to the liabilities of Maricalum and thus should be bound by the judgment.
    • He maintained the argument that GHI was a mere transferee pendente lite, having actual and constructive knowledge of the claims.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of Montilla, Jr.’s motion for the issuance of an amended writ of execution to include G Holdings, Inc., a non-party to the original case.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.