Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46274)
Facts:
Spouses Camilo Rosello and Dorotea Rosello v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Numeriano G. Estenzo, Jesus Laurente and Calixtra Yap, G.R. No. L-46274; and Gaudencia Hoyla, Patricia Villasan, Spouses Camilo Rosello and Dorotea Rosello v. Honorable Court of Appeals, Hon. Numeriano G. Estenzo, Presiding Judge, CFI of Leyte, Branch V, Ormoc City, and Calixtra Yap, G.R. No. L-46549, December 14, 1988, the Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Spouses Camilo and Dorotea Rosello (also joined by Gaudencia Hoyla and Patricia Villasan in G.R. No. L-46549). Respondents include the Court of Appeals, Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo (trial judge), the estate administrator Jesus Laurente, and Calixtra Yap (plus other heirs/parties in related lower-court actions).
In 1957 the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte, Branch V (Judge Ignacio Debuque) rendered judgment in Civil Case No. R-399 adjudicating six parcels to the intestate estate of Joaquin Ortega and ordering restoration of possession; that judgment was affirmed on appeal (CA G.R. No. 25242-R) and became final on November 7, 1972. In October 1972 Calixtra Yap and others filed Civil Case No. 1184-0 in the same CFI, seeking quieting of title and reconveyance for certain parcels; that action was amended to include the entire Ortega estate as parties. After the pendency of Civil Case No. 1184-0, the estate moved for execution of the 1957 judgment; a writ of execution issued April 28, 1973 and the sheriff’s return (June 27, 1973) reported delivery of five parcels to the estate while one parcel (Parcel No. 2) was not turned over because held under an original certificate of title (OCT No. 2151) by the Mendozas.
On motion of the parties and by order of the trial court, Geodetic Engineer Venancio Besavilla was appointed commissioner and conducted surveys (July 6–14, 1973); his Report and Survey Plan was approved October 6, 1973 over the Rosellos’ opposition. The estate then sought an alias writ of execution to vindicate parcels the commissioner identified as within the R-399 adjudication; the Rosellos petitioned the Court of Appeals for injunction (CA G.R. No. SP-02516-R) to enjoin issuance of the alias writ and to annul the commissioner’s report, but the CA dismissed that petition on July 12, 1974, finding joint hearing and the commissioner’s work proper under Section 1, Rule 31, Rules of Court.
Meanwhile, on February 24, 1974 the trial court in Civil Case No. 1184-0 declared Calixtra Yap the exclusive owner of a Sta. Cruz, Isabel parcel and adjudged other half-shares to co-plaintiffs; that judgment bore upon which parcels could be executed upon. After finality of the CA ruling upholding the commissioner’s report, the trial court issued an alias writ of execution (order of September 16, 1975), and execution pending appeal was allowed in favor of Calixtra Yap (order of June 25, 1976). The Rosellos’ motions for reconsideration were denied and their petition to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. SP-05929-R) was dismissed (decision dated March 2, 1977; resolution May 12, 1977). The Rosellos then elevated the matter to this Court by certiorari (G.R. No. L-46274).
Separately, in Civil Case No. 1224-0 (filed June 4, 1973) Calixtra Yap filed on May 31, 1976 a petition for receivership that was unverified and unsupported by affidavits; respondent Judge Estenzo nevertheless granted receivership on June 5, 1976. The Rosellos filed for certiorari, prohibition and injunction (with preliminary injunction) in the Court of Appeals, also attacking the trial court’s September 14, 1976 decision on the merits and seeking Judge Estenzo’s disqualification; the CA on March 17, 19...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the order appointing a receiver (granted on an unverified, affidavit-less petition) legally valid?
- Should Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo have been disqualified from further hearing Civil Case No. 1224-0 because an administrative complaint had been filed against him?
- Did the alias writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. R-399 conform to the judgment such that Lots Nos. 1 (southern portion), 4 and 7 could be properly included?
- May a writ of execution be validly issued against a person who is not a party to the case and who holds and possesses a parcel under a Torrens (OCT) title?
- May a writ of execution be issued in favor of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)