Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32642)
Facts:
Dominador Sta. Ana v. Hon. Delfin Vir. Sunga, Judge, Mauro B. Fajardo, Pelicula Sabido and Maximo Rances, G.R. No. L-32642, November 26, 1973, Supreme Court First Division, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.
This case arose from Civil Case No. 2040 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur, where Victor Dasal and Maria Pecunio sued Pelicula Sabido and Maximo Rances (the private respondents here) in an action to quiet title over a parcel referred to as Lot B. After the CFI-appointed commissioner’s delimitation and a trial, the trial court rendered judgment on October 7, 1969 finding that plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of Lot B and declaring the defendants owners, ordering plaintiffs to vacate and pay damages, attorney’s fees and costs. That judgment became final and executory.
A writ of execution issued January 29, 1970 was served by the provincial sheriff on February 14, 1970 with a return (dated February 20, 1970) that material possession of Lot B had been delivered to defendants “except the western portion measuring 6 meters by 32 meters enclosed by a concrete wall on three sides which is claimed by [petitioner] Dominador Sta. Ana who is not a party to this case.” There were also houses within Lot B whose occupants promised to remove them.
On March 31, 1970 the prevailing parties (respondents) moved the CFI to require Dominador Sta. Ana to show cause why he should not be ejected from the portion of Lot B detained by him and to authorize demolition of houses still standing on Lot B, alleging that plaintiffs had purportedly conveyed the lot to Sta. Ana after the judgment. Sta. Ana (joined by two occupants) answered on April 22, 1970, asserting that he was a stranger to the action, that a hearing should be held before any ejectment or demolition, that the houses were his tenants’ and that he had purchased the larger parcel (of which Lot B is allegedly a part) by absolute sale from Prudencio Lagarto on December 20, 1951. He attached the deed and tax declarations and denied any privity with the parties in the quiet-title suit.
The CFI, however, relied on the commissioner’s report and some trial testimony and, by order dated May 5, 1970, overruled Sta. Ana’s opposition and ordered Sta. Ana, the occupants and their agents to demolish their houses on the western portion of Lot B within ten days. Sta. Ana moved for reconsideration (May 16, 1970), reasserting his nonparty status and right to a hearing; the motion was denied in an order of September 17, 1970. Respondents then sought a writ of demolition (Sept. 30, 1970); the CFI scheduled a hearing for October 23, 1970.
Petitioner filed in this Court on October 12, 1970 a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction against enforcement of the CFI orders. On October 15, 1970 this Court required answers and issued a preliminary injunction against execution of the May 5, 1970 order upon an injunction bond. While the petition was pending, parties filed numerous pleadings raising contested factual questions (including a separate motion for contempt and a petition for preliminary mandatory injunction regarding an allegedly illegal fence), highlighting disputes whether Sta. Ana was truly a stranger, a transferee pendente lite, or otherwise privy to the losing parties.
The Court below (CFI) had admitted that Sta. Ana “has no house inside Lot B” and that including him in the demolition order was a “palpable mistake,” yet denied relief. Sta. Ana asserted that because he was not a party to the quiet-title action he could not appeal that judgment and thus properly sought relief by certiorari/prohibition to prevent enforcement against him without a hearing.
This Court took the petition as a special civil ac...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner, as a nonparty to the quiet-title action, have standing to invoke certiorari and prohibition to restrain enforcement of the CFI’s demolition/ejectment orders (i.e., was certiorari a proper remedy since he could not appeal)?
- Did the respondent court exceed its jurisdiction in ordering demolition/ejectment of petitioner’s claimed portion of Lot B without first affording him a hearing to determine whether he was a party or in privity and whether he had bona fide possession?
- Was the underlying judgment in the quiet-title suit void because it was rendered after the death of pla...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)