G.R. No. 120784-85 - Sps. Bustos vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120784-85)

Factual Background

The decedent, Paulino Fajardo, left four children: Manuela, Trinidad, Beatriz and Marcial. On September 30, 1964, the heirs executed an extra-judicial partition of Paulino’s estate, and on the same date Manuela sold her one-fourth share to Moses G. Mendoza by deed of absolute sale describing a parcel in San Isidro, Masantol, Pampanga. At the time of sale there was no cadastral survey; later cadastre identified the partitioned parcels as Lots 280, 283, 284, 1000-A and 1000-B, and Lot 284 was subdivided into Lots 284-A and 284-B. Trinidad occupied the land and refused to surrender possession to Moses despite demands.

Partition Action and Trial Court Proceedings

While Trinidad remained in possession, Moses filed a complaint for partition on September 3, 1971, claiming Manuela’s one-fourth share. The Regional Trial Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch 55, rendered judgment on February 8, 1989 in favor of Moses, ordering division and partition by segregating a one-fourth portion from the right eastern portion of the subject land, describing the portion by metes and bounds with the aid of a qualified surveyor, constituting a commission to implement the order if necessary, and awarding P500 as attorney’s fees plus costs.

Subsequent Transfers Affecting Possession

During the pendency of the partition case, Trinidad died and her heirs executed an extra-judicial partition of her estate on December 15, 1984. On February 16, 1987, Lucio Fajardo Ignacio, son of Trinidad, sold Lot 284-B to Spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray. On September 13, 1991, Moses G. Mendoza sold the subject land to Spouses Warlito Bustos and Herminia Reyes-Bustos, who took actual possession as lessees of Francisco Ignacio, Trinidad’s husband.

Unlawful Detainer and Related Proceedings

On November 6, 1989, Spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray filed an action for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Macabebe-Masantol, Pampanga, against the Bustoses, who were in actual possession. The municipal court rendered judgment in favor of the Virays and issued writs of execution and demolition. The writs were stayed when the Bustoses filed with the Regional Trial Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch 55, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction.

Regional Trial Court Certiorari Ruling and Appeal

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and ordered the petitioners and Meridian Assurance Corporation jointly and severally to pay the Virays P20,000 for litigation expenses and attorney’s fees and to pay costs; this decision was rendered on December 18, 1992. The Bustoses timely appealed to the Court of Appeals. Lucio Ignacio also appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals on August 9, 1993.

Court of Appeals Decision

On August 26, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a consolidated judgment that, among other things, declared Moses Mendoza the owner of the one-fourth undivided share formerly owned by Manuela; affirmed but modified the RTC partition judgment by ordering a relocation survey and reimplementation of partition measures at Moses’ expense; dismissed one appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the certiorari petition as effective only on the issue of possession. The Court’s decision thus affirmed ownership in Moses’s favor while sustaining the municipal court’s possession ruling in favor of the Virays.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Bustoses could be ejected from land that the Court of Appeals had, in the accion reinvindicatoria proceeding, effectively adjudicated to the Bustoses (as buyers from Moses), given that a separate ejectment/unlawful detainer judgment favorable to the Virays had become final and executory. The legal question focused on the interplay between finality of possession orders and subsequent adjudications of ownership, and whether execution of a final ejectment should be stayed under the exceptions to the ministerial duty to execute judgments.

Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners contended that they were now legal owners of the subject land by virtue of a valid deed of sale traceable to Moses and that ejecting them under the final unlawful detainer judgment would produce grave injustice. They argued that once ownership had been adjudicated in their favor, possession issues became moot and that the court should suspend execution of the prior judgment to accomplish justice and to give effect to the ownership determination.

Respondents’ Position

The Court of Appeals and the Virays relied on the finality of the municipal court’s unlawful detainer judgment to support execution and eviction. The municipal judgment in favor of the Virays had become final and executory, thus, on its face, entitling them to possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed possession on that ground even while adjudicating ownership interests in the partition action.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G. R. SP No. 30609 as moot and academic and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G. R. CV No. 37606. The Court held that execution of the final and executory possession judgment should be stayed in light of the subsequent adjudication of ownership in favor of the Bustoses, because executing the ejectment would effectuate a grave injustice by removing owners from the property they had been declared to own.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120784-85)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Spouses Warlito Bustos and Herminia Reyes-Bustos filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration.
Spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray were the adverse respondents who had secured judgment in an unlawful detainer action and who claimed title through purchase from heirs.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals rulings rendered in consolidated cases docketed in the appellate court including CA-G.R. SP No. 30369 and CA-G.R. CV No. 37607 as reflected in the record.
The petition was filed on July 13, 1985 and the Supreme Court gave it due course and required memoranda on August 4, 1997.
The Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G. R. SP No. 30609 for being moot and academic, and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G. R. CV No. 37606.

Key Factual Allegations

Paulino Fajardo died intestate in April 1957 and left four children named Manuela, Trinidad, Beatriz and Marcial.
The heirs executed an extra-judicial partition of Paulino's estate on September 30, 1964, and on the same date Manuela sold her one-fourth share to Moses G. Mendoza by deed of absolute sale.
The property description in the 1964 sale identified an irrigated riceland in San Isidro, Masantol, Pampanga, described by metes and bounds and under Tax Declaration No. 3029 for P710.00.
No cadastral survey existed at the time of the 1964 transaction and a later cadastre identified the subject lands as Lots 280, 283, 284, 1000-A and 1000-B, with Manuela's share including Lot 284 which was later subdivided into 284-A and 284-B.
Trinidad remained in physical possession of the land and refused to surrender it to Moses G. Mendoza, prompting Mendoza to file a partition complaint on September 3, 1971.
During the partition litigation, Trinidad died and her heirs executed an extra-judicial partition on December 15, 1984, after which Lucio Fajardo Ignacio, son of Trinidad, sold Lot 284-B to Spouses Venancio and Cecilia Nunga-Viray on February 16, 1987.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, rendered judgment on February 8, 1989 in favor of Moses G. Mendoza, ordering the division and partition and adjudication of a one-fourth portion to the plaintiffs.
Moses G. Mendoza sold the subject land to Spouses Bustos on September 13, 1991, and the Virays instituted an unlawful detainer action on November 6, 1989 against the Bustos, who were in actual possession as lessees of Francisco Ignacio.
A municipal trial court ruled for the Virays in the unlawful detainer case and issued writs of execution and demolition that were stayed when the Bustos filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Regional Tria