Case Summary (G.R. No. 230104)
Background of the Case and Property Description
In 1958, Anita U. Lorenzana filed ejectment suits against tenants occupying different stalls in a quonset hut located in the San Lazaro Estate area (corner of C.M. Recto Street and Quezon Boulevard, Manila). Lorenzana had leased and later purchased the quonset hut and adjacent lands from the Manila Railroad Company and then the Bureau of Lands. The quonset had a floor area of approximately 360 square meters, with additional land north and south of about 340 square meters. Polly Cayetano lived on the northern adjacent area of the quonset hut, also leased from the same government entities, where her house and improvements stood.
Proceedings Below: Ejectment Actions and Writs of Demolition
Lorenzana’s ejectment cases against her tenants were ruled in her favor by the Municipal Court of Manila and the Court of First Instance (Branch I), ordering the tenants to vacate. Upon tenants’ refusal, a writ of demolition was issued to demolish the premises occupied by the tenants. Lorenzana, accompanied by her counsel and the Deputy Sheriff, executed the writ by demolishing fences, flower pots, trellises, and electrical installations on Cayetano’s adjacent property, despite protests that Cayetano was not a party to the ejectment cases nor subject of the demolition order.
Further demolition orders, including a writ covering approximately 700 square meters, were issued. Lorenzana and the sheriff moved the illegally placed fence multiple times further into Cayetano’s property, damaging her improvements. Cayetano filed motions for contempt, motions to suspend execution of demolition, and other petitions, which were either denied, held in abeyance, or withdrawn.
Civil Case for Damages and Injunction
In response, Cayetano filed Civil Case No. 42001 against Lorenzana, her counsel, and the Deputy Sheriff for damages and mandatory injunction to restore her property. The trial court dismissed the complaint and defendants’ counterclaim citing insufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, awarding damages, ordering restoration of the property, and recognizing that the destruction of Cayetano’s improvements was unlawful.
Issues on Appeal and Legal Questions
Lorenzana brought the case to the Supreme Court, presenting several assignments of error:
- Whether the writ of demolition issued in the ejectment cases could be legally enforced against respondent Polly Cayetano, who was not a party to the ejectment suits.
- Whether Cayetano’s failure to challenge the writ through higher court remedies constituted a waiver of her rights.
- Whether the writ of execution and order of demolition could be attacked in an independent action for damages.
- Whether the issuance of the writ violated Section 14, Rule 39, regarding notice to the judgment debtor before demolition.
Court’s Analysis: Due Process and Jurisdiction Over Property
The Supreme Court ruled that the writs of demolition could not be legally executed against Polly Cayetano because she was not a party to the ejectment cases. The court emphasized that Cayetano was a third party, holding her right and interest in the property independently by virtue of a lease agreement with the Bureau of Lands, not from either the plaintiff (Lorenzana) or the tenants who were parties to the ejectment cases. As such, the judgment and related writs did not bind her and could not affect her property rights.
The Court underscored the constitutional due process requirements for judicial proceedings, citing El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca and Macabingkil v. Yatco, which require that:
- The court must have jurisdiction over the person or property.
- The party must be accorded the opportunity to be heard.
- The judgment must be rendered after lawful hearing.
Cayetano’s appearance in court after judgment and execution of the writ of demolition did not make her a party to the ejectment suits or waive her rights. Hearing her motions after the final judgment did not meet due process requirements because the court never acquired jurisdiction over her property during the original ejectment cases.
Remedies for Third-Party Claimants under Rule 39
The court cited Section 17, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows a third party claiming levied property to institute a separate action to vindicate ownership and recover damages for unlawful taking. Cayetano exercised this right appropriately by filing a separate civil case for damages and injunction against Lorenzana and her agents.
The Court explained that failure to pursue remedies like motions to quash or petitions under Rule 38 did not constitute waiver of this right. The law provides for the proper remedy through separate action rather than direct appeal from writs issued in cases to which the third party was not a party.
Collateral Attack on Writs of Execution and Demolition
The Court rejected petitioner’s claim that Cayetano’s action for damages constituted a prohibited collateral attack on final judgments. The wrongful execution of the writ, particularly on Cavetano's property not subject to the ejectment, was a valid ground for damages, not an attempt to nullify or review the ejectment decision.
The Court explained that different branches of the court may have concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction, and a third-party claim does not interfere with the enforcement of judgments against the proper parties. The injunction and civil action sought relief independent of, and not contradictory to, the ejectment case but rather addressed unlawful acts committed under color of execution.
Application of Notice Requirements under Rule 39, Section 14
Although the Court observed that notice requirements under Section 14, Rule 39, pertained to the judgment debtor and not strangers such as Cayetano, it regarded this point as immaterial to the outcome because the writs could not legally extend to third parties’ property regardless.
Concurring Opinion: Additional Facts and Clarifications
Justice Munoz Palma provided a concurring opinion with additional context regarding the history of the property involved. Lorenzana initially was denied lease by the Manila Railroad Company but compelled by court decision to receive title to the quonset hut and adjacent lands, later confirmed by purchase.
The Bureau of Lands recognized Lorenzana’s leasehold interest and collected rent accordingly, but the tenancy of Cayetano was distinct and involved separate improvements. The ejectment cases covered only Lorenzana’s te
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230104)
Background and Factual Context
- The controversy arose from ejectment cases filed by petitioner Anita U. Lorenzana in 1958 against her tenants occupying stalls in a quonset hut located at the San Lazaro Estate in Manila.
- Lorenzana had leased and later purchased the quonset hut and the adjacent land from the Manila Railroad Company and the Bureau of Lands, encompassing a leasehold area of approximately 700 square meters (360 sq. meters for the quonset hut plus 340 sq. meters for adjacent land).
- The private respondent Polly Cayetano occupied the land immediately north of the quonset hut where her house stood; she also leased this area from the same government agencies but was not a party to Lorenzana’s ejectment actions.
- The ejectment cases against Lorenzana's tenants were decided in her favor by the Municipal Court, later affirmed by the Court of First Instance (Branch I) of Manila, which ordered tenants to vacate premises and authorized issuance of a writ of demolition.
Judicial Proceedings and Writs of Demolition
- After tenants’ refusal to vacate, a writ of demolition was issued on July 20, 1959, directing the Sheriff to demolish the premises subject of the ejectment suits.
- On July 27, 1959, Lorenzana, her counsel, and the Deputy Sheriff executed the demolition, entering Cayetano’s adjacent property without her consent, destroying her fence and other improvements, and unlawfully moving the fence five meters into Cayetano’s lot.
- A second writ of demolition was issued on September 28, 1959, covering an expanded area of about 700 square meters, which included land occupied by respondent Polly Cayetano.
- Upon issuance of this writ, Lorenzana’s agents continued to encroach on Cayetano’s property, including moving fences further.
- Cayetano filed motions for contempt and for suspension of the writ execution, both of which were either held in abeyance or denied by the court.
Case Filed by Polly Cayetano and Trial Court’s Findings
- On October 1, 1959, Cayetano filed Civil Case No. 42001 against Lorenzana, her attorney, and the Deputy Sheriff for damages and a mandatory injunction to restore her property.
- Lorenzana and co-defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the trial court.
- On March 9, 1962, the Court of First Instance dismissed Cayetano’s complaint for lack of sufficient evidence; her motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Court of Appeals Decision and Legal Findings
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling in favor of respondent Cayetano.
- The appellate court ordered Lorenzana to restore possession of the property encroached upon and to reinstate the original fence and valuable improvements prior to demolition.
- Lorenzana and the Deputy Sheriff were jointly and severally ordered to pay P5,500.00 as actual and moral damages and cover litigation costs.
- The Court of Appeals held that the writs of demolition issued in the ejectment cases could not be legally enforced against Cayetano because:
- She was not a party to the ejectment cases.
- She did