G.R. No. 130845 - Villanueva vs. Velasco

Bryan U. Villanueva (petitioner) is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 127862 of Quezon City, acquired from Pacific Banking Corporation, the mortgagee of the property.
Pacific Banking Corporation had acquired the land from spouses Maximo and Justina Gabriel through a public auction in 1983.
Private respondents Julio N. Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla are successors-in-interest of the Espinolas, who were granted a two-meter wide easement of right of way over the land by the Gabriels in a Contract of Easement dated November 28, 1979.

The easement granted the Espinola family permanent right of way across the southeastern side of the Gabriels’ property to access Tandang Sora Avenue, a public road.
At the time of petitioner’s purchase, a small house was constructed by the Gabriels on part of the two-meter easement, encroaching about one meter within the easement's width.
Petitioner was unaware of the easement and the encroachment when he acquired the land.

On May 8, 1991, private respondents filed Civil Case No. Q-91-8703 against the Gabriels to enforce the easement, claim damages, and obtain a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order.
The RTC issued a temporary restraining order on May 15, 1991, and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on August 13, 1991, commanding the Gabriels to demolish the encroaching house and provide access.
The Gabriels’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed on March 26, 1992, affirming the RTC rulings. The decision became final on July 31, 1992.

On January 5, 1995, the RTC, Branch 88, issued an Alias Writ of Demolition.
On June 20, 1995, the sheriff attempted to demolish the small house. Petitioner filed a Third Party Claim with prayer to quash the writ, arguing that the writ cannot apply to his land as he was not a party to the earlier case.
The RTC denied the petitioner's Third Party Claim and subsequent motions for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 39166, seeking to quash the writ and disputing the enforceability of the easement since it was not annotated in his title and because he was not a party to the original case.
The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Whether the easement of right of way, not expressly stated or annotated on petitioner’s Torrens title, legally binds petitioner as successor-in-interest.
Whether petitioner, as a buyer of the registered land, was obliged to inquire beyond the records of the Register of Deeds to discover the existence of the easement.
Whether the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-91-8703 binds petitioner, who was not a party to the case, and whether he was deprived of due process.