G.R. No. L-46274 - Spouses Rosello vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46274)

Factual Background: Civil Case No. R-399 and the First Execution

The record showed that in Civil Case No. R-399, the CFI of Leyte, Branch V (Ormoc City) rendered judgment on December 21, 1957, declaring as null and void the sale at public auction of six (6) parcels of land belonging to the intestate estate of Joaquin Ortega in favor of Camilo Rosello. The court ordered Rosello to vacate the parcels and to deliver possession thereof to the estate through its administrator. Rosello appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with only a modification on the award of damages and attorney’s fees on October 13, 1972, and the judgment became final on November 7, 1972.

While the appeal was pending, Civil Case No. 1184-0 was filed in October 1972 by Calixtra Yap and her children by Joaquin Ortega against the estate and others, seeking to quiet title and obtain reconveyance of parcels of land located in Sta. Cruz, Isabel, Leyte. The complaint was amended twice and eventually covered the entire estate of Joaquin Ortega, which had already been adjudicated in Special Proceedings No. 441-R to Emilia Ybanez and her children on November 24, 1962. Because of the pendency of Civil Case No. 1184-0, Calixtra Yap opposed the execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. R-399 on April 25, 1973.

Despite the opposition, the lower court issued a writ of execution on April 28, 1973, ordering the sheriff to place the estate’s administrator, Jesus Laurente, in possession of the disputed lands. The sheriff enforced the writ and identified the parcels for two days in the presence of the parties and adjoining owners mentioned in the tax declarations. The Sheriff’s Return of Service dated June 27, 1973 certified delivery of five (5) parcels designated as Parcels Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the Ortega estate. Parcel No. 2 was not delivered because it was allegedly never in Rosello’s possession and was owned and possessed by the spouses Herminigildo Mendoza and Josefina Villarmino under OCT No. 2151.

Factual Background: Civil Case No. 1224-0, Survey Proceedings, and Alias Execution

On June 4, 1973, Calixtra Yap filed a separate action, Civil Case No. 1224-0, against Camilo and Dorotea Rosello, seeking annulment and/or reformation of a deed of sale over a 45-hectare parcel in Barrio Cangag, Isabel, Leyte, alleging that only a five-hectare portion had actually been sold. Petitioners Gaudencia Hoyla and Patricia Villasan were later included as additional defendants through subsequent amendments. During the pretrial and related proceedings, a survey of the lands involved in Civil Case No. 1184-0 was ordered on July 6 to 14, 1973, with Geodetic Engineer Venancio Besavilla conducting the survey.

At a hearing for the approval of the survey, the parties requested inclusion of three adjacent parcels in Camilo Rosello’s name, alleging these had been included in the judgment in favor of the Ortega estate in Civil Case No. R-399. On this basis, on August 15, 1973, the trial judge ordered Besavilla to resurvey (i) the three lots sought to be included in Civil Case No. 1184-0, (ii) the parcel not turned over in Civil Case No. R-399, and (iii) the parcels involved in Civil Case No. 1224-0. Besavilla later submitted the Report and Survey Plan, which the lower court approved on October 6, 1973 despite the Rosellos’ opposition.

On the same date, October 6, 1973, the estate administrator filed a motion for an Alias Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. R-399. The motion alleged that although on April 29, 1973 the administrator had been placed in possession of certain parcels pursuant to the writ, the ocular inspection by the Commissioner (Besavilla) showed that not all parcels and improvements due the estate had been turned over. The original motion identified multiple lots, but it was later amended to exclude Lots Nos. 5, 6, and 8. The Rosellos then petitioned the Court of Appeals for injunction, seeking to bar issuance of the alias writ and to invalidate the commissioner’s report and survey plan, and to compel the trial court to hold a separate trial in Civil Case No. 1224-0. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on July 12, 1974, finding the joint hearing in the lower court in accord with Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court and upholding the validity of the report and survey plan.

Civil Case No. 1184-0 and the Execution Pending Appeal

The lower court rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 1184-0 on February 24, 1974, declaring Calixtra Yap Ortega as surviving spouse of Joaquin Ortega and as exclusive owner of the Sta. Cruz property, with a right to one-half of other parcels found by the court to be conjugal properties, and adjudicating the other half proportionately among the other plaintiffs. The administrator was ordered to deliver the land as indicated to Calixtra Yap upon termination of Special Proceedings No. 441-R, pending in Branch II of the CFI of Cebu.

After the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-02516-R became final, the lower court issued an order on September 16, 1975 granting the administrator’s motion for an alias writ of execution. The Rosellos appealed from that order. In response, the administrator and Calixtra Yap separately moved for execution pending appeal, and the motion of Calixtra Yap was granted on June 25, 1976. The Rosellos’ motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting a renewed appeal to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-05929-R, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. This dismissal led to G.R. No. L-46274.

Factual Background: Receivership and the New Trial in Civil Case No. 1224-0

In G.R. No. L-46549, the records showed that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 1224-0, Calixtra Yap filed a petition for receivership on May 31, 1976. The petition was unverified and was not supported by affidavits. Nonetheless, the petition was granted by respondent Judge Estenzo on June 5, 1976, appointing Mr. Artemio Manuel as receiver of properties in litigation.

The Rosellos twice moved for reconsideration, but those motions were denied. They then filed on September 23, 1976 a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion in granting receivership. They also filed a supplemental petition, challenging the merits decision in Civil Case No. 1224-0 and praying for the judge’s disqualification. An administrative complaint against the judge was also filed in this Court as Adm. Matter No. 1409-CFI.

The Court of Appeals rendered judgment on March 17, 1977 annulling the decision in Civil Case No. 1224-0 and ordering a new trial for reception of further evidence from the defendants (petitioners herein). However, the same judgment held the petitioners’ objections to the receivership and their prayer for disqualification to be without merit. Those portions became the focus of the present certiorari appeal under G.R. No. L-46549. The record further showed that respondent judge retired on July 5, 1979, making the disqualification issue moot.

Issues Raised by the Petitioners in G.R. No. L-46274

In G.R. No. L-46274, the issues presented were: first, whether the writ of execution issued by the trial court complied with the judgment; second, whether a writ of execution could validly be issued against a person who was not a party to the case and who owned and possessed a parcel under the Torrens system; and third, whether a writ of execution could issue in favor of an alleged intervenor who had never been allowed to intervene.

The petitioners asserted that the controversy before the Court arose from an attempt by private respondents to include in the alias writ of execution and in the writ of execution pending appeal parcels not litigated and not subject of the Civil Case R-399 judgment.

The Court’s Treatment of the Alleged Non-Compliance with the Judgment and the Effect of Finality

The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention as unmeritorious. It noted that the three parcels included in the alias writ and in the writ of execution pending appeal were identified by the survey results: (a) the southern portion of Lot No. 1 (Tax Declaration 3262) with an area of 475,898 square meters, more or less; (b) Lot No. 7 (Tax Declaration 3263) with an area of 159,439 square meters, more or less; and (c) Lot No. 4 (Tax Declaration 3263) with an area of 162,245 square meters, more or less.

The Court held that the survey established these as part of the lands sought to be reconveyed to the Ortega estate in Civil Case No. R-399. It further observed that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-02516-R had already found the Besavilla report and survey plan valid and that petitioners had been duly informed of the appointment and survey. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the petition for injunction in that case had already attained finality because the petitioners failed to further appeal. On this basis, the Court viewed the inclusion of Lots Nos. 4, 7, and the southern portion of Lot No. 1 as an implementation of the final judgment in Civil Case No. R-399.

Due Process Limitation: Inclusion of Lot No. 4

While affirming the validity of the survey-based inclusion generally, the Court recognized a critical limitation. It referenced the engineer’s findings that Lot No. 4 was identical to Parcel No. 2 of the sheriff’s return in Civil Case No. R-399, which had not been turned over because it was owned and possessed by the Mendoza spouses under OCT No. 2151. The Court noted that Parcel No. 2 had later been transferred to Bienvenido Roselle and then to Bayani Rosello. Since these persons were not parties in any of the civil cases involved, the Court held that including Lot No. 4 in the writ would amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

Accordingly, the Court modified the Court of Appeals rulings in G.R. No. L-46274, excluding Lot No. 4 from the alias writ of execution issued by the trial court.

Real Party in Interest and Exe

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-46274)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The consolidated cases arose from intestate estate proceedings for the estate of the late Joaquin Ortega, who died on May 22, 1948.
In G.R. No. L-46274, Spouses Camilo Rosello and Dorotea Rosello sought review by petition for certiorari to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals decision dated March 2, 1977 and resolution dated May 12, 1977 in CA-G.R. No. SP-05929-R.
In G.R. No. L-46549, Gaudencia Hoyla, Patricia Villasan, Spouses Camilo Rosello and Dorotea Rosello sought review by petition for certiorari to reverse and set aside: the Court of Appeals portion of its decision dated March 17, 1977 in CA-G.R. No. 05882-SP, and the resolution dated July 6, 1977 denying reconsideration.
The respondents included the Court of Appeals, Hon. Numeriano G. Estenzo, Jesus Laurente as administrator in the related proceedings, and Calixt ra Yap.

Core Estate Proceedings

The litigation centered on the enforcement of a final judgment in Civil Case No. R-399, an intestate-related dispute involving multiple parcels of land claimed by the estate.
The estate’s landholdings and disputed portions were later entangled with a quieting-of-title and reconveyance case (Civil Case No. 1184-0) and an ownership dispute involving cancellation and reformation (Civil Case No. 1224-0).
The cases further involved subsequent efforts to include or exclude specific lots in an alias writ of execution and in a writ of execution pending appeal.

Key Factual Background

In Civil Case No. R-399, the then CFI of Leyte, Branch V, Ormoc City rendered judgment on December 21, 1957, declaring null and void the sale at public auction of six parcels belonging to the intestate estate of Joaquin Ortega in favor of Camilo Rosello.
The trial court ordered Camilo Rosello to vacate and deliver possession of the parcels to the estate through its administrator.
Camilo Rosello appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 25242-R, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment on October 13, 1972, with the sole modification on damages and attorney’s fees.
The appellate decision became final on November 7, 1972.
In October 1972, Civil Case No. 1184-0 was filed in the same CFI by Calixtra Yap and her children against the estate and others, and it was amended twice to cover the entire estate of Joaquin Ortega already adjudicated in Special Proceedings No. 441-R.
On April 25, 1973, Calixtra Yap opposed the heirs’ motion for execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. R-399 based on the pendency of Civil Case No. 1184-0.
Despite the opposition, the trial court issued a writ of execution on April 28, 1973, directing the sheriff to place the administrator Jesus Laurente in possession of the disputed lands.
The sheriff carried out service for two days in the presence of the parties and adjoining owners mentioned in the tax declarations.
The sheriff’s Return of Service dated June 27, 1973 certified that five parcels (Parcels 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were turned over to the estate, while Parcel No. 2 was not delivered because it was owned and possessed by the spouses Herminigildo Mendoza and Josefina Villarmino under OCT No. 2151.
On June 4, 1973, Calixtra Yap filed Civil Case No. 1224-0 against Spouses Camilo and Dorotea Rosello for annulment and/or reformation of a deed of sale, alleging that only a five-hectare portion was sold, not the entire 45 hectares stated in the deed.
During the pendency of Civil Case No. 1184-0, the trial court ordered a survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer Venancio Besavilla on July 6–14, 1973.
At the hearing for approval of the survey, the parties sought to include three adjacent parcels in the name of Camilo Rosello allegedly included in the judgment in Civil Case No. R-399.
On August 15, 1973, the trial judge ordered Engineer Besavilla to resurvey the disputed lots in relation to the related cases pending in the judge’s sala, including: (a) the three parcels sought for inclusion in Civil Case No. 1184-0, (b) the parcel not turned over in Civil Case No. R-399, and (c) parcels involved in Civil Case No. 1224-0.
On October 6, 1973, the administrator moved for an alias writ of execution after an ocular inspection revealed that not all parcels and improvements due the estate had been turned over.
The motion was later amended to exclude Lots Nos. 5, 6, and 8.
The Rosellos countered by filing in the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. No. SP-02516-R a petition for injunction to prevent issuance of an alias writ of execution and to annul the commissioner’s report and survey plan and to compel a separate trial in Civil Case No. 1224-0.
The Court of Appeals dismissed CA-G.R. No. SP-02516-R on July 12, 1974, holding that the joint hearing of the cases was in accordance with Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, and that the commissioner’s report and survey plan were valid.
On February 24, 1974, the court rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 1184-0, declaring Calixtra Yap the surviving spouse and exclusive owner of the Sta. Cruz, Isabel, Leyte property, and awarding ownership shares for other parcels.
The administrator was ordered to deliver property as above-indicated upon termination of Special Proceedings No. 441-R pending in another branch.
After the finality of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-02516-R, the trial court granted an alias writ on September 16, 1975.
The Rosellos appealed and the administrator and Calixtra Yap separately moved for execution pending appeal.
Calixtra Yap’s motion for execution pending appeal was granted on June 25, 1976, and the Rosellos’ reconsideration was denied.
The Rosellos pursued CA-G.R. No. SP-05929-R, which was dismissed, giving rise to G.R. No. L-46274.

Execution Issues in L-46274

The issues in G.R. No. L-46274 concerned whether the writ of execution conformed to the judgment, whether execution could issue against a non-party Torrens titleholder, and whether execution could issue in favor of an alleged intervenor who was never allowed to intervene.
The petitioners alleged that the controversy arose from an attempt to include parcels that were not litigated or not the subject matter of Civil Case No. R-399.
The Court found unmeritorious the contention that three specific lots included in the alias writ and in the writ pending appeal were improperly included, because those lots were established through the survey conducted by Engineer Besavilla as forming part of lands sought to be reconveyed in Civil Case No. R-399.
The Court noted that Lot No. 1 was identified as identical to Parcel 5 in the sheriff’s return and belonged to the Ortegas under the relevant tax declaration.
The Court noted that Lot No. 4 was identical to Parcel 2 in the sheriff’s return and belonged under a particular tax declaration.
The Court noted that Lot No. 7 was part of Parcel 3 in the sheriff’s return and was bounded by Balit Brook on the southern portion.
The Court found no record showing that the commissioner’s report and survey plan were tainted by fraud or mistake.
The Court emphasized that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-02516-R had ruled the report and survey plan valid and that