G.R. No. 145222 - Spouses Buado vs. Court of Appeals

Spouses Roberto Buado and Venus Buado (petitioners) filed a complaint for damages against Erlinda Nicol in Branch 19 of the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite (Civil Case No. 84-33) on 30 April 1984.
The action arose from Erlinda Nicol’s civil liability in connection with a criminal offense of slander filed by the petitioners.
On 6 April 1987, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Erlinda Nicol to pay:

The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and eventually by the Supreme Court, becoming final and executory on 5 March 1992.

Directed that Erlinda Nicol’s insufficiency of personal property be supplemented by levying her real property.
Provided for the sum of P40,000.00 to be recovered from her property.
Outlined the procedure involving the Register of Deeds and subsequent actions if personal property was inadequate.

Issued a notice of levy on real property, which was annotated on the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-125322.
Issued a notice of sheriff’s sale on 20 November 1992, leading to an auction sale held on 28 January 1993 where petitioners were the highest bidders.
Issued a certificate of sale in favor of the petitioners on 4 February 1993.

On 2 February 1994, Romulo Nicol (respondent), husband of Erlinda Nicol, filed a complaint for annulment of the certificate of sale and damages with a preliminary injunction, asserting:

Irregularities in the execution process (failure to exhaust collection from personal property, alleged lack of proper publication and posting of the notice of sale).
That the property was sold at a “very low price” (P51,685.00) compared to the judgment obligation of P40,000.00.

The case was assigned to Branch 21 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite.
Petitioners responded by moving to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds:

They argued that the writ of execution was issued by Branch 19, and any issues concerning its implementation should be resolved in that branch.
Citing De Leon v. Salvador, they maintained that respondent (the husband of the judgment debtor) should not be allowed a separate independent action because he was not a “third party” under Section 16 (formerly Section 17) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

The RTC of Imus, Branch 21, dismissed respondent’s complaint on 18 April 1994, ruling that Branch 19 was the proper forum for issues arising from the issuance and implementation of the writ of execution.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal:

The Court of Appeals held that Branch 21 had jurisdiction to act on the complaint.
The case was remanded to RTC Imus, Branch 21 for further proceedings.

Petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on 23 August 2000, prompting the petition for certiorari on the ground of alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.

That Branch 19 retained exclusive jurisdiction over not only its judgment but also all incidents connected with its execution.
That respondent, being the husband of the judgment debtor, was not a “third party” as envisaged under Section 16, Rule 39, and therefore, his independent action was improper.

A petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy reserved for correcting jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not mere errors in judgment.
The alleged error – a matter of judgment regarding jurisdiction and the characterization of the spouse as a “third party” – should have been addressed on appeal.

The case, thus, raised the question of whether the husband of a judgment debtor, when the executed property is conjugal, can file an independent action to protect his ownership rights.

Whether Branch 21 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite, had proper jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by Romulo Nicol despite the writ of execution being issued by Branch 19.
Whether the husband of the judgment debtor can be considered a “stranger” for purposes of filing an independent action under Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, given that the executed property is conjugal in nature.
Whether the personal obligation arising from the criminal offense of slander committed by Erlinda Nicol redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership, thereby affecting the jurisdictional issue.
Whether the remedy of certiorari is appropriate when the alleged error pertains to a matter of judgment (an appealable error) rather than a jurisdictional error.