Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > June 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 142676 : June 06, 2011] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. AND SAMUEL GO CHAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 146718] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SAMUEL GO CHAN AND AIDA C. CHAN, AND THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS.:

Before Us are the following consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

In G.R. No. 142676, Emerita Muñoz (Muñoz) is seeking the reversal, annulment, and setting aside of the Decision ^[1] dated July 21, 1995 and Resolution ^[2] dated March 9, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35322, which affirmed the Orders ^[3] dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 (RTC-Branch 88) of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632.  The RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 8286, the forcible entry case instituted by Muñoz against Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. (Atty. Yabut) and Samuel Go Chan before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 33 of Quezon City; and nullified the MeTC Order ^[4] dated May 16, 1994, granting Muñoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which restored possession of the subject property to Muñoz.

In G.R. No. 146718, Muñoz is praying for the reversal, setting aside, and nullification of the Decision ^[5] dated September 29, 2000 and Resolution ^[6] dated January 5, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019, which affirmed the Orders ^[7] dated August 21, 1995 and October 3, 1995 of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 95 (RTC-Branch 95) in Civil Case No. Q-28580 denying Muñoz's Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297 ^[8] against respondents Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses Chan).

I
FACTS

The subject property is a house and lot at No. 48 Scout Madriñan St., Diliman, Quezon City, formerly owned by Yee L. Ching.  Yee L. Ching is married to Emilia M. Ching (spouses Ching), Muñoz's sister.  Muñoz lived at the subject property with the spouses Ching.  As consideration for the valuable services rendered by Muñoz to the spouses Ching's family, Yee L. Ching agreed to have the subject property transferred to Muñoz.  By virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, seemingly executed by Yee L. Ching in favor of Muñoz, ^[9] the latter acquired a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 186306 covering the subject property in her name on December 22, 1972. ^[10]  However, in a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972, Muñoz purportedly sold the subject property to her sister, Emilia M. Ching.  As a result, TCT No. 186306 was cancelled and TCT No. 186366 was issued in Emilia M. Ching's name.  Emilia M. Ching, in a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 1979, sold the subject property to spouses Go Song and Tan Sio Kien (spouses Go), hence, TCT No. 186366 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Go's names.

On October 15, 1979, Muñoz registered her adverse claim to the subject property on TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go.  The next day, on October 16, 1979, Muñoz filed a complaint for the annulment of the deeds of absolute sale dated December 28, 1972 and July 16, 1979, the cancellation of TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Go's names, and the restoration and revival of TCT No. 186306 in Muñoz's name. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-28580 and raffled to RTC-Branch 95.  On October 17, 1979, Muñoz caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go.  In an Order dated December 17, 1979, the RTC-Branch 95 granted the spouses Go's motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and ordered the sheriff to put the spouses Go in possession of the subject property.  The writ was implemented by the sheriff on March 26, 1980, driving Muñoz and her housemates away from the subject property.

Muñoz filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals, assailing the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 10148.  The appellate court dismissed Muñoz's petition on January 4, 1980.  Yee L. Ching and his son Frederick M. Ching filed an urgent motion for leave to intervene in CA-G.R. SP No. 10148 and for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).  The Court of Appeals issued a TRO.  However, in a Resolution dated March 18, 1980, the appellate court denied the motion to intervene of Yee L. Ching and Frederick M. Ching, and cancelled the TRO previously issued.  Yee L. Ching and Frederick M. Ching challenged before this Court, in G.R. No. 53463, the Resolution dated March 18, 1980 of the Court of Appeals.  Eventually, in a Resolution dated June 3, 1981, the Court dismissed the petition in G.R. No. 53463, for lack of merit and failure of Yee L. Ching and Frederick M. Ching to substantially show that the RTC-Branch 95 and the Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion.  In a subsequent Resolution dated June 21, 1982, the Court clarified that its Resolution of June 3, 1981 was without prejudice to the continuation of the litigation in Civil Case No. Q-28580 still pending before the trial court, "in order that proper and final adjudication may be made of whether or not the deed of sale by Emerita L. Muñoz in favor of Emilia M. Ching is a real, genuine and authentic transaction, thereby to settle once and for all the issue of ownership of the property herein in question." ^[11]

Trial in Civil Case No. Q-28580 proceeded before RTC-Branch 95.

In the meantime, Muñoz's adverse claim and notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 258977 was cancelled on October 28, 1982 on the basis of an alleged final judgment in favor of the spouses Go. ^[12]  The spouses Go obtained a loan of P500,000.00 from BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI Family) and to secure the same, they constituted a mortgage on the subject property on November 23, 1982. ^[13]  When the spouses Go defaulted on the payment of their loan, BPI Family foreclosed the mortgage.  BPI Family was the highest bidder at the auction sale of the subject property. The spouses Go failed to exercise their right of redemption within the prescribed period, thus, BPI Family was finally able to register the subject property in its name on October 23, 1987 under TCT No. 370364. ^[14]  Apparently, the original copy of TCT No. 370364 was among those razed in the fire at the Quezon City Register of Deeds on June 11, 1988.  As a result of the administrative reconstitution of the lost title, TCT No. RT-54376 (370364) was issued to BPI Family. On December 3, 1990, BPI Family executed in favor of the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses Chan) a Deed of Absolute Sale ^[15] covering the subject property for and in consideration of P3,350,000.00.  Consequently, TCT No. RT-54376 (370364) in the name of BPI Family was cancelled and TCT No. 53297 was issued in the spouses Chan's names on January 28, 1991. ^[16]  The spouses Chan obtained a loan from BPI Family on October 2, 1992 for the construction of a building on the subject property, and to secure the same, constituted a mortgage on the subject property in favor of BPI Family. ^[17]

On July 19, 1991, RTC-Branch 95 rendered its Decision ^[18] in Civil Case No. Q-28580, against Emilia M. Ching, Yee L. Ching, and the spouses Go (Emilia M. Ching, et al.).  It found that Muñoz's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972 was forged; that Muñoz never sold the subject property to her sister, Emilia M. Ching; and that the spouses Go were not innocent purchasers for value of the subject property.  The fallo of the said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing for lack of merit [Emilia M. Ching, et al.'s] respective counterclaims, cross-claims, and counter-cross-claim, declaring as null and void ab initio the following documents, to wit: (a) Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. M; (b) TCT No. 186366 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. N; (c) Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 1979, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. 3; and, (d) TCT No. 258977 of the Registry of Deeds for Metro Manila District III, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. 4, and directing defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel from the records of the subject property the registrations of all the said documents and to restore and revive, free from all liens and encumbrances, TCT No. 186306 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. L, as well as ordering defendants Emilia M. Ching, Go Song and Tan Sio Kien jointly and severally to pay [Muñoz] the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and to pay the costs of suit. The court also hereby dismisses the rest of the claims in [Muñoz's] complaint, there being no satisfactory warrant therefor. ^[19]

Emilia M. Ching, et al.'s, appeal of the foregoing judgment of the RTC-Branch 95 was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 33811 before the Court of Appeals.  In its Decision ^[20] dated March 4, 1993, the appellate court not only affirmed the appealed judgment, but also ordered the spouses Go and their successors-in-interest and assigns and those acting on their behalf to vacate the subject property, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against [Emilia M. Ching, et al.]. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued on December 17, 1979 is hereby set aside and declared dissolved. Defendants-appellants Go and Tan, their successors-in-interest and assigns and those acting on their behalf, are ordered to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver the same to [Muñoz] immediately upon receipt of this decision. ^[21]

Emilia L. Ching, et al., filed before this Court a motion for extension of time to file their petition for review, which was assigned the docket number G.R. No. 109260. However, they failed to file their intended petition within the extended period which expired on April 23, 1993. In a Resolution ^[22] dated July 12, 1993, the Court declared G.R. No. 109260 terminated.  The Resolution dated July 12, 1993 of the Court in G.R. No. 109260 became final and executory on July 15, 1993 and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments on even date. ^[23]

More than two months later, on September 20, 1993, the RTC-Branch 95 issued a writ of execution to implement the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580.

The spouses Chan, who bought the subject property from BPI Family, then came forward and filed before the RTC-Branch 95 on October 22, 1993 an Urgent Motion to Stop Execution as Against Spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida Chan, ^[24] opposing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. Q-28580.  The spouses Chan asserted ownership and possession of the subject property on the basis of a clean title registered in their names under TCT No. 53297.  The spouses Chan further contended that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 could not be executed against them since they were not parties to the said case; they were not successors-in-interest, assigns, or acting on behalf of the spouses Go; and they purchased the subject property from BPI Family without any notice of defect in the latter's title.

It was only at this point that Muñoz, upon her own inquiry, discovered the cancellation on October 28, 1982 of her adverse claim and notice of lis pendens annotated on the spouses Go's TCT No. 258977, and the subsequent events that led to the transfer and registration of the title to the subject property from the spouses Go, to BPI Family, and finally, to the spouses Chan.

In its Order ^[25] dated December 28, 1993, the RTC-Branch 95 denied the spouses Chan's urgent motion to stop the execution.  According to the RTC-Branch 95, the photocopy of TCT No. 370364 in the name of BPI Family, submitted by the spouses Chan with their motion, could hardly be regarded as satisfactory proof that Muñoz's adverse claim and notice of lis pendens annotated therein were also missing from the original copy of said certificate of title.  Muñoz's adverse claim and notice of lis pendens were annotated on TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Go's names as P.E.-8078 and P.E.-8178, respectively.  So when TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go was cancelled and TCT No. 370364 was issued to BPI Family, it could be presumed that the Register of Deeds regularly performed his official duty by carrying over Muñoz's adverse claim and notice of lis pendens to TCT No. 370364. In addition, the RTC-Branch 95 pointed out that in this jurisdiction, the entry of the notice of lis pendens in the day book of the Register of Deeds was already sufficient notice to the whole world of the dispute over the subject property, and there was no more need to annotate the same on the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title.  Finally, the RTC-Branch 95 held that TCT No. RT-54376 (370364) of BPI Family and TCT No. 53297 of the spouses Chan shall be subject to the reservation under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 ^[26] "[t]hat certificates of title reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof, shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title." Thus, the spouses Chan were deemed to have taken the disputed property subject to the final outcome of Civil Case No. Q-28580.

On January 3, 1994, the RTC-Branch 95 issued an Alias Writ of Execution. ^[27]  On January 10, 1994, the writ was enforced, and possession of the subject property was taken from the spouses Chan and returned to Muñoz. ^[28]  In its Orders dated April 8, 1994 and June 17, 1994, the RTC-Branch 95 denied the spouses Chan's motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal, respectively. ^[29]

G.R. No. 142676

Pending resolution by the RTC-Branch 95 of the spouses Chan's motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal in Civil Case No. Q-28580, Muñoz instituted before the MeTC on February 4, 1994 a Complaint for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction ^[30] against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, docketed as Civil Case No. 8286.  Muñoz alleged in her complaint that she had been in actual and physical possession of the subject property since January 10, 1994.  She hired a caretaker and two security guards for the said property. On February 2, 1994, Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, along with 20 other men, some of whom were armed, ousted Muñoz of possession of the subject property by stealth, threat, force, and intimidation.  Muñoz prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut and all persons claiming right under them to vacate the subject property.  Muñoz additionally prayed for judgment making the mandatory injunction permanent and directing Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut to pay Muñoz: (1) compensation for the unlawful occupation of the subject property in the amount of P50,000.00 per month, beginning February 2, 1994 until the said property is fully and completely turned over to Muñoz; (2) attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00, plus P1,500.00 per court appearance of Muñoz's counsel; and (3) costs of suit.

Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut denied Muñoz's allegations, insisting that Samuel Go Chan is the valid, lawful, and true legal owner and possessor of the subject property.  Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut averred that the Turn-Over of Possession and Receipt of Possession dated January 10, 1994 - attached to Muñoz's complaint as proof that the subject property had been placed in her possession - is a falsified document.  The Writ of Execution issued on September 20, 1993 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 had already expired and the Sheriff's Return on the Writ - another document purporting to show that possession of the subject property was turned-over to Muñoz on January 10, 1994 - was then being challenged in a complaint before the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez of the Supreme Court. Samuel Go Chan's possession of the subject property has never been interrupted.  His sister, Cely Chan, resided at the subject property and was never removed therefrom.  On February 2, 1994, Atty. Yabut was at the subject property only to protect the rights and interest of his client, Samuel Go Chan, and since the latter's possession of the subject property had never been interrupted, Atty. Yabut entered the same peacefully, without intimidation, force, or stealth.  The other people at the subject property on February 2, 1994 were there to attend the services at the Buddhist Temple which occupied the fourth floor of the building erected by the spouses Chan on the subject property.  Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, thus, asked the MeTC to dismiss Muñoz's complaint for lack of merit and legal basis. ^[31]

The MeTC received evidence from the parties on whether a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued, as prayed for by Muñoz.  In its Order dated May 16, 1994, the MeTC adjudged that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was already executed against the spouses Chan and there was, indeed, a turn-over of possession of the subject property to Muñoz. Accordingly, the MeTC granted Muñoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, restoring possession of the subject property to Muñoz.

Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut questioned the foregoing MeTC order through a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction ^[32] before the RTC-Branch 88, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20632.  They asserted that they were not bound by the execution of the final judgment of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 as they were not parties to the said case.  Muñoz, on the other hand, argued that the MeTC Order of May 16, 1994 was an interlocutory order, and under Section 19 of the Rules of Summary Procedure, a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order issued by the court is one of the prohibited pleadings and motions in summary proceedings.

In its Order dated June 10, 1994, the RTC-Branch 88 issued a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994.

On August 5, 1994, the RTC-Branch 88 issued another Order resolving Muñoz's motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632, motion for reconsideration of the Order dated June 10, 1994 of RTC-Branch 88 granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and motion to resolve with additional grounds for dismissal.  According to the RTC-Branch 88, the MeTC failed to distinguish the issue of finality of the judgment of the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 from the assertions of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut that the spouses Chan are not covered by said final judgment because they are not successors-in-interest, assigns, or privies of the spouses Go and they are purchasers of the subject property in good faith.  The issue of whether the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 extended to the spouses Chan was then still being litigated in the same case before RTC-Branch 95, where the spouses Chan's motion for reconsideration of the denial of their notice of appeal was pending.  The RTC-Branch 88 further found that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing Muñoz's complaint for forcible entry on the ground of "lis pendens," as the issue as to who between Muñoz and the spouses Chan had the better right to possession of the subject property was the subject of the pending proceeding in Civil Case No. Q-28580 before the RTC-Branch 95.  In the end, the RTC-Branch 88 decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment -

(a)  Denying the motion to dismiss of respondent Muñoz for lack of merit;

(b)  Denying the motion for reconsideration of respondent Muñoz for the recall and/or setting aside of the writ of preliminary injunction granted to petitioners;

(c)  Declaring the Order dated May 16, 1994 of Public respondent Hon. Elsa de Guzman in Civil Case No. 8286 illegal and therefore null and void; and

(d) Dismissing the ejectment suit in Civil Case No. 8286 on ground of lis pendens.

Without pronouncement as to costs. ^[33]

Muñoz appealed the Orders dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994 of RTC-Branch 88 before the Court of Appeals.  Her appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 35322. Aside from the nullification of the two orders, Muñoz additionally prayed for the dismissal from the service of the RTC-Branch 88 presiding judge and the disbarment of Atty. Yabut.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 21, 1995, sustained the appealed orders of RTC-Branch 88.  The Court of Appeals held that the MeTC should have dismissed the forcible entry case on the ground of "lis pendens"; that the spouses Chan were not parties in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and impleading them only in the execution stage of said case vitiated their right to due process; that the order of the RTC-Branch 95 involving the spouses Chan in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was null and void, considering that they are strangers to the case, and they are innocent purchasers for value of the subject property; that the notice of lis pendens was already cancelled from the spouses Go's certificate of title at the time they mortgaged the subject property to BPI Family; and that the title to the subject property was already free of any and all liens and encumbrances when the spouses Chan purchased the said property from BPI Family. The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated March 9, 2000, denied Muñoz's motion for reconsideration.

G.R. No. 146718

Meanwhile, Muñoz filed before the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 a Motion to Cite the Register of Deeds in Contempt of Court for the failure of the Register of Deeds to restore Muñoz's TCT No. 186306 despite having been served with a copy of the writ of execution on October 11, 1993.  In its Judgment (on the Contempt Proceedings against the Register of Deeds of Quezon City Samuel C. Cleofe) ^[34] dated March 18, 1994, the RTC-Branch 95 denied Muñoz's motion, convinced that the Register of Deeds had a valid excuse for his inability to implement the served writ.  The Register of Deeds could not cancel the spouses Chan's TCT No. 53297, the subsisting certificate of title over the subject property, absent any authority or directive for him to do so.  The directive in the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 and the writ of execution for the same only pertained to the cancellation of the spouses Go's TCT No. 258977.

Thereafter, Muñoz filed a Motion for Contempt against the spouses Chan and a Second Motion for Contempt against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut.  Muñoz also filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297, ^[35] in which she prayed for the issuance of an alias writ of execution directing the Register of Deeds not only to cancel TCT No. 258977 and all documents declared null and void ab initio in the dispositive portion of the Decision ^[36] dated July 19, 1991 of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and to restore and revive, free from all liens and encumbrances Muñoz's TCT No. 186306, but likewise to cancel the present certificate of title covering the subject property, TCT No. 53297.

In its Order dated August 21, 1995, the RTC-Branch 95 denied all of Muñoz's aforementioned motions.  The RTC-Branch 95 was of the view that Samuel Go Chan's title should be litigated in another forum, not in Civil Case No. Q-28580 where the judgment had already become final and executory.  The RTC-Branch 95 also stressed that since the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 had long become final and executory, it could no longer be changed or amended except for clerical error or mistake.  Accordingly, the RTC-Branch 95 resolved as follows:

1. Ordering, as it hereby orders, the denial of [Muñoz's] first and second motions for contempt and hereby absolves respondents Samuel Go Chan, Celia Chan, Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr., and several John Does of the Contempt Charges against them.

2. Ordering, as it hereby orders, the issuance of an alias writ of execution directing the Court's Deputy Sheriff:

	(a)	Defendants Go Song and Tan Sio Kien, their successors-in-interest and assigns and those acting on their behalf to vacate the disputed premises and deliver the same to [Muñoz];
	(b)	Defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel from the records of the subject property the registration of all the following documents, to wit: (1) "Deed of Absolute Sale" dated December 28, 1972; (2) Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 186366 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City; (3) "Deed of Absolute Sale" dated July 16, 1979; and (4) TCT No. 258977 of the Registry of Deeds for Metro Manila II, and to restore and revive, free from all liens and encumbrances TCT No. 186306 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City; and
	(c)	Defendants Emilia M. Ching, Go Song and Tan Sio Kien jointly and severally to pay [Muñoz] the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and to pay the cost of suit. [37]

Unrelenting, Muñoz filed a Motion for Clarificatory Order, pointing out that the spouses Chan are the present occupants of the subject property.  The Order dated August 21, 1995 of the RTC-Branch 95 directed the deputy sheriff to deliver the subject property to Muñoz, and this could not be done unless the spouses Chan are evicted therefrom.  Resultantly, Muñoz prayed that "a clarificatory order be made categorically stating that the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan, and all persons claiming right under them, are likewise evicted from the subject premises pursuant to the Order of 21 August 1995." ^[38]

Once more, the RTC-Branch 95 denied Muñoz's motion in its Order dated October 3, 1995.  The RTC-Branch 95 reiterated the rule that after the judgment had become final, only clerical errors, as distinguished from substantial errors, can be amended by the court.  Furthermore, when the decision or judgment sought to be amended is promulgated by an appellate court, it is beyond the power of the trial court to change, amplify, enlarge, alter, or modify.  Ultimately, the RTC-Branch 95 pronounced that it was "restrained x x x to consider as mere clerical error the exclusion of spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan in the Decision of the Court dated July 19, 1991, a final judgment, which judgment cannot now be made to speak a different language." ^[39]

Attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC-Branch 95 in issuing its Orders dated August 21, 1995 and October 3, 1995, Muñoz filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, which was remanded to the Court of Appeals in observance of the hierarchy of courts, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 40019.  The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on September 29, 2000 dismissing Muñoz's petition.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC-Branch 95 that the spouses Chan could not be covered by the alias writ of execution considering that they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-28580.  The cancellation of TCT No. 53297 in the spouses Chan's names could not be done apart from a separate action exclusively for that matter.  The spouses Chan are deemed buyers in good faith and for value as the certificate of title delivered to them by BPI Family was free from any liens or encumbrances or any mark that would have raised the spouses Chan's suspicions.  Every person dealing with registered lands may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate and inquire into the circumstances culminating in the vendor's acquisition of the property.  The Court of Appeals denied Muñoz's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 5, 2001.

Muñoz comes before this Court via the present consolidated petitions.

Muñoz posits that the final judgment and writ of execution of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 bind not only Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, but also their successors-in-interest, assigns, or persons acting on their behalf, namely, BPI Family and spouses Chan.  The spouses Chan cannot be deemed innocent purchasers for value of the property since the cancellation of the adverse claim and notice of lis pendens on the spouses Go's TCT No. 258977 is completely null and void.

Muñoz further argues that the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 in Civil Case No. 8286 correctly ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction restoring possession of the subject property to her, as she had already acquired prior possession of the said property upon the execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580. Also, the spouses Chan's petition for certiorari before the RTC-Branch 88, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20632, challenging the Order dated May 16, 1994 of the MeTC in Civil Case No. 8286, is a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Summary Procedure; and the RTC-Branch 88 and the Court of Appeals should be faulted for giving due course to the said petition even in the absence of jurisdiction.

On the other hand, in their comments to the two petitions at bar, the spouses Chan, Atty. Yabut, and BPI Family assert that given the peculiar factual circumstances of the case, RTC-Branch 88 was justified in taking cognizance of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut's petition for certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632; that Muñoz is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of RTC-Branch 88 after participating in the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632; that the spouses Chan's title to the subject property is not affected by the final judgment of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and the said judgment cannot be executed against the spouses Chan since they are neither parties to the case, nor are they the successors-in-interest, assigns, or persons acting on behalf of Emilia M. Ching or the spouses Go; that BPI Family and consequently, the spouses Chan, obtained title to the subject property as innocent purchasers for value, there being no notice of any infirmity in said title; and that Muñoz is guilty of forum shopping for filing her petition in G.R. No. 146718 even while her petition in G.R. No. 142676 is still pending.

II
RULING

For the sake of expediency, we will be discussing first the merits of the petition in G.R. No. 146718.

G.R. No. 146718

Civil Case No. Q-28580 involved Muñoz's complaint for the annulment of the deeds of absolute sale dated December 28, 1972 ^[40] and July 16, 1979, ^[41] the cancellation of the spouses Go's TCT No. 258977, and the restoration and revival of Muñoz's TCT No. 186306.  The final judgment of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was in favor of Muñoz and against Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go. The problem arose when during the pendency of the said case, title and possession of the subject property were transferred from the spouses Go, to BPI Family, and finally, to the spouses Chan. BPI Family and the spouses Chan were never impleaded as parties and were not referred to in the dispositive portion of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580.

Muñoz questions in G.R. No. 146718:  (1) the Order dated August 21, 1995 denying her Motion for Contempt against the spouses Chan, Second Motion for Contempt against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, and Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297; and (2) the Order dated October 3, 1995 denying her Motion for Clarificatory Order, both issued by the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and upheld by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019.  In sum, Muñoz was seeking in her aforementioned motions: (1) a categorical order from the RTC-Branch 95 that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 be executed against the spouses Chan; and (2) the surrender and cancellation of the spouses Chan's TCT No. 53297 and restoration of Muñoz's TCT No. 186306.

There is no merit in Muñoz's petition in G.R. No. 146718.

Civil Case No. Q-28580 is an action for reconveyance of real property.  In Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, ^[42] we described an action for reconveyance as follows:

An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner. ^[43]  (Emphases ours.)

The rule is that: (1) a judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate of a will; and (2) a judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon strangers.  A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam; it is binding only against the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.  An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.  Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded. ^[44]

Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan.  The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them.  No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court.  In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto. ^[45]

A similar situation existed in Dino v. Court of Appeals, ^[46] where we resolved that:

As the registered owner of the subject property, petitioners are not bound by decision in Civil Case No. R-18073 for they were never summoned in said case and the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. 73069 was already cancelled at the time petitioners purchased the subject property.  While it is true that petitioners are indispensable parties in Civil Case No. R-18073, without whom no complete relief could be accorded to the private respondents, the fact still remains that petitioners were never actually joined as defendants in said case.  Impleading petitioners as additional defendants only in the execution stage of said case violated petitioners' right to due process as no notice of lis pendens was annotated on the existing certificate of title of said property nor were petitioners given notice of the pending case, therefore petitioners remain strangers in said case and the Order of the trial court involving them is null and void, considering that petitioners are innocent purchasers of the subject property for value. ^[47]

We further stress that Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, clearly provides that "[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack.  It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law."  Herein, several Torrens titles were already issued after the cancellation of Muñoz's. Certificates of title had been successively issued to Emilia M. Ching, spouses Go, BPI Family, and spouses Chan. Civil Case No. Q-28580, in which a final judgment had already been rendered, specifically challenged the validity of the certificates of title of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go only. To have the present certificate of title of the spouses Chan cancelled, Muñoz must institute another case directly attacking the validity of the same.

The fact that the titles to the subject property of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go were already declared null and void ab initio by final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 is not enough, for it does not automatically make the subsequent titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan correspondingly null and void ab initio.

It has long been ingrained in our jurisprudence that a void title may become the root of a valid title if the derivative title was obtained in good faith and for value.  Following the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title, every person dealing with registered lands may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate and inquire into the circumstances culminating in the vendor's acquisition of the property. The rights of innocent third persons who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title and acquired rights over the property covered thereby cannot be disregarded and the courts cannot order the cancellation of such certificate for that would impair or erode public confidence in the Torrens system of land registration. ^[48]

Hence, we pronounced in Republic v. Agunoy, Sr. ^[49]:

Here, it bears stressing that, by petitioner's own judicial admission, the lots in dispute are no longer part of the public domain, and there are numerous third, fourth, fifth and more parties holding Torrens titles in their favor and enjoying the presumption of good faith. This brings to mind what we have reechoed in Pino v. Court of Appeals and the cases therein cited:

[E]ven on the supposition that the sale was void, the general rule that the direct result of a previous illegal contract cannot be valid (on the theory that the spring cannot rise higher than its source) cannot apply here for We are confronted with the functionings of the Torrens System of Registration. The doctrine to follow is simple enough: a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the ROOT of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. ^[50]  (Emphases ours.)

Although the RTC-Branch 95 had declared with finality in Civil Case No. Q-28580 that the titles of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go were null and void, there is yet no similar determination on the titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan.  The question of whether or not the titles to the subject property of BPI Family and the spouses Chan are null and void, since they are merely the successors-in-interest, assigns, or privies of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, ultimately depends on the issue of whether or not BPI Family and the spouses Chan obtained their titles to the subject property in bad faith, i.e., with notice of Muñoz's adverse claim and knowledge of the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-28580.  The latter is a factual issue on which we cannot rule in the present petition, not only because we are not a trier of facts, but more importantly, because it was not among the issues raised and tried in Civil Case No. Q-28580.

In support of her prayer for an alias writ of execution against BPI Family and the spouses Go, Muñoz cites our ruling in Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, ^[51] in relation to De la Cruz v. De la Cruz. ^[52]

De la Cruz is an action for reconveyance of Lot 671 founded on breach of trust filed by Augustina de la Cruz, et al., against Lucia dela Cruz (Lucia) and Iglesia Ni Kristo (INK).  We upheld the validity of the sale of Lot 671 by Lucia to INK, and thereby validated the title of INK to the said property.

Calalang actually involved two petitions: (1) a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition originally filed by Virginia Calalang (Calalang) before this Court, and (2) a petition for injunction with damages originally filed by Augusto M. de Leon (De Leon), et al., before the RTC and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-45767.  Calalang and De Leon, et al., assert titles that were adverse to that of INK.  De Leon, et al., in particular, claim that their titles to Lot 671 were derived from Amando Clemente. Calalang and De Leon, et al., sought from the court orders enjoining INK from building a fence to enclose Lot 671; requiring the Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) to conduct an investigation of the anomaly regarding Lucia's reconstituted title to Lot 671; and dismissing the proceedings instituted by the Register of Deeds for the cancellation of their titles.  We dismissed the petitions of Calalang and De Leon, et al., on the ground of res judicata, the legality or validity of the title of INK over Lot 671 had been settled with finality in De la Cruz.  De la Cruz was applied to Calalang and De Leon, et al., since the facts on which such decision was predicated continued to be the facts on which the petitions of Calalang and De Leon, et al., were based.

Muñoz's reliance on Calalang is misplaced.  There are substantial differences in the facts and issues involved in Calalang and the present case.

In Calalang, there is duplication or overlapping of certificates of title issued to different persons over the same property.  We already upheld in De la Cruz the validity of the certificate of title of INK over Lot 671, which effectively prevents us from recognizing the validity of any other certificate of title over the same property. In addition, Lucia, the predecessor-in-interest of INK, had her certificate of title judicially reconstituted. The judicial reconstitution of title is a proceeding in rem, constituting constructive notice to the whole world.  Hence, we rejected the petitions of Calalang and De Leon, et al., to enjoin INK from building a fence enclosing Lot 671, and the concerned public authorities from instituting appropriate proceedings to have all other certificates of title over Lot 671 annulled and cancelled.

In the instant case, there has been no duplication or overlapping of certificates of title.  The subject property has always been covered by only one certificate of title at a time, and at present, such certificate is in the spouses Chan's names.  As we have previously discussed herein, Muñoz cannot have the spouses Chan's TCT No. 53297 cancelled by a mere motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. Q-28580, when the spouses Chan were not parties to the case. Civil Case No. Q-28580 was a proceeding in personam, and the final judgment rendered therein - declaring null and void the titles to the subject property of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go - should bind only the parties thereto.  Furthermore, despite the void titles of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, the derivative titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan may still be valid provided that they had acquired the same in good faith and for value.

More in point with the instant petition is Pineda v. Santiago. ^[53]  Pineda still involved Lot 671.  INK sought from the RTC a second alias writ of execution to implement the judgment in Calalang against Conrado Pineda (Pineda), et. al.  In opposing the issuance of such writ, Pineda, et al., asserted that they held titles to Lot 671 adverse to those of Lucia and INK and that they were not parties in De la Cruz or in Calalang.  In its assailed order, the RTC granted the second alias writ of execution on the basis that the issue of ownership of Lot 671 was already determined with finality in favor of Lucia and INK.  The writ ordered the deputy sheriff to eject Pineda, et al., from Lot 671. When the matter was brought before us, we annulled the assailed order as the writ of execution issued was against Pineda, et al., who were not parties to Civil Case No. Q-45767, the ejectment suit instituted by De Leon, et al.  We elaborated in Pineda that:

Being a suit for injunction, Civil Case No. Q-45767 partakes of an action in personam.  In Domagas v. Jensen, we have explained the nature of an action in personam and enumerated some actions and proceedings which are in personam, viz:

"The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant.  Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him.  An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam."

The respondent judge's jurisdiction is, therefore, limited to the parties in the injunction suit. To stress, the petition for injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-45767, was filed only by therein petitioners Augusto M. de Leon, Jose de Castro, Jose A. Panlilio, Felicidad Vergara Vda. De Pineda, Fernando L. Vitug I, Fernando M. Vitug II, Fernando M. Vitug III, and Faustino Tobia, and later amended to include Elena Ostrea and Feliza C. Cristobal-Generoso as additional petitioners therein, against Bishop Eraño Manalo, in his capacity as titular and spiritual head of I.N.K. Herein petitioners Conrado Pineda, et al. never became parties thereto. Any and all orders and writs of execution, which the respondent judge may issue in that case can, therefore, be enforced only against those parties and not against the herein petitioners Conrado Pineda, et al. In issuing the assailed Order dated 22 April 1998, which directed the issuance of the 2nd Alias Writ of Execution to eject non-parties (herein petitioners), the respondent judge clearly went out of bounds and committed grave abuse of discretion.

The nature of the injunction suit -- Civil Case No. Q-45767 -- as an action in personam in the RTC remains to be the same whether it is elevated to the CA or to this Court for review.  An action in personam does not become an action in rem just because a pronouncement confirming I.N.K.'s title to Lot 671 was made by this Court in the Calalang decision.  Final rulings may be made by this Court, as the Highest Court of the Land, in actions in personam but such rulings are binding only as against the parties therein and not against the whole world.  Here lies another grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge when he relied on the Calalang decision in his assailed Order dated 07 May 1998 as if it were binding against the whole world, saying:

"After evaluating the arguments of both parties, decisive on the incident is the decision of the Supreme Court in favor of the respondent I.N.K., represented by its titular and spiritual head Bishop Eraño G. Manalo, sustaining its ownership over the subject Lot 671. This Court could do no less but to follow and give substantial meaning to its ownership which shall include all dominical rights by way of a Writ of Execution. To delay the issuance of such writ is a denial of justice due the I.N.K."

As a final word, this decision shall not be misinterpreted as disturbing or modifying our ruling in Calalang. The final ruling on I.N.K.'s ownership and title is not at all affected. Private respondent I.N.K., as the true and lawful owner of Lot 671 as ruled by the Court in Calalang, simply has to file the proper action against the herein petitioners to enforce its property rights within the bounds of the law and our rules.  I.N.K.'s recourse of asking for the issuance of an alias writ of execution against the petitioners in Civil Case No. Q-45767 and the respondent judge's orders in said case, granting I.N.K.'s prayer and enforcing the alias writ of execution against the present petitioners, constitutes blatant disregard of very fundamental rules and must therefore be stricken down. ^[54]  (Emphases ours.)

Consistent with Pineda, and as appositely recommended by the RTC-Branch 95 and the Court of Appeals in the present case, Muñoz's legal remedy is to directly assail in a separate action the validity of the certificates of title of BPI Family and the spouses Chan.

G.R. No. 142676

G.R. No. 142676 is Muñoz's appeal of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286, the forcible entry case she instituted against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut before the MeTC.

There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property. Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof. ^[55]

Title is never in issue in a forcible entry case, the court should base its decision on who had prior physical possession. The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession and that same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth, so that it behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership. ^[56]

We more extensively discussed in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals ^[57] that:

Ownership or the right to possess arising from ownership is not at issue in an action for recovery of possession. The parties cannot present evidence to prove ownership or right to legal possession except to prove the nature of the possession when necessary to resolve the issue of physical possession. The same is true when the defendant asserts the absence of title over the property. The absence of title over the contested lot is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case.

The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is - who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable, or when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to be approved by the proper government agency. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror.  Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed.  Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.

Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.  Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.  To repeat, the only issue that the court has to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession. ^[58]  (Emphases ours.)

Based on the foregoing, we find that the RTC-Branch 88 erred in ordering the dismissal ofCivil Case No. 8286 even before completion of the proceedings before the MeTC.  At the time said case was ordered dismissed by RTC-Branch 88, the MeTC had only gone so far as holding a hearing on and eventually granting Muñoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

Muñoz alleges in her complaint in Civil Case No. 8286 that she had been in prior possession of the subject property since it was turned-over to her by the sheriff on January 10, 1994, pursuant to the Alias Writ of Execution issued by the RTC-Branch 95 to implement the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580.  The factual issue of who was in prior possession of the subject property should be litigated between the parties regardless of whether or not the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 extended to the spouses Chan.  Hence, the pendency of the latter issue in Civil Case No. Q-28580 before the RTC-Branch 95 did not warrant the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286 before the MeTC on the ground of litis pendentia.  The two cases could proceed independently of one another.

Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut aver that the spouses Chan have never lost possession of the subject property since acquiring the same from BPI Family in 1990. This is a worthy defense to Muñoz's complaint for forcible entry, which Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut should substantiate with evidence in the continuation of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 8286 before the MeTC.

In addition, Civil Case No. 8286, a forcible entry case, is governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 19 whereof provides:

SEC. 19.  Prohibited pleadings and motions. - The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

x x x x

(g)  Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court.

The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules.  Pursuant to this objective, the Rule prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a number of other pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary delays and to expedite the disposition of cases. ^[59]

Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. ^[60]  An order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is interlocutory and unappealable. ^[61]

The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the MeTC in its Order dated May 16, 1994, directing that Muñoz be placed in possession of the subject property during the course of Civil Case No. 8286, is an interlocutory order.  Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut assailed the said order before the RTC-Branch 88 via a petition for certiorari, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20632.  The RTC-Branch 88 gave due course to said petition, and not only declared the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 null and void, but went further by dismissing Civil Case No. 8286.

The prohibition in Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is plain enough.  Its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage. ^[62] The petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 is clearly covered by the said prohibition, thus, it should have been dismissed outright by the RTC-Branch 88. While the circumstances involved in Muñoz's forcible entry case against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut are admittedly very peculiar, these are insufficient to except the petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 from the prohibition.  The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. ^[63]

Nonetheless, even though the peculiar circumstances extant herein do not justify the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286, they do require limiting pro hac vice the reliefs the MeTC may accord to Muñoz in the event that she is able to successfully prove forcible entry by Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut into the subject property (i.e., that the sheriff actually turned-over to Muñoz the possession of the subject property on January 10, 1994, and that she was deprived of such possession by Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut on February 2, 1994 by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth). Taking into account our ruling in G.R. No. 146718 - that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 does not extend to the spouses Chan, who were not impleaded as parties to the said case - the MeTC is precluded from granting to Muñoz relief, whether preliminary or final, that will give her possession of the subject property.  Otherwise, we will be perpetuating the wrongful execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580.  Based on the same reason, Muñoz can no longer insist on the reinstatement of the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 granting a preliminary mandatory injunction that puts her in possession of the subject property during the course of the trial. Muñoz though may recover damages if she is able to prove wrongful deprivation of possession of the subject property from February 2, 1994 until the finality of this decision in G.R. No. 146718.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we:

(1) GRANT Emerita Muñoz's petition in G.R. No. 142676. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated July 21, 1995 and Resolution dated March 9, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35322, which affirmed the Orders dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632.  We DIRECT the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 33 of Quezon City to reinstate Emerita Muñoz's complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 8286 and to resume the proceedings only to determine whether or not Emerita Muñoz was forcibly deprived of possession of the subject property from February 2, 1994 until finality of this judgment, and if so, whether or not she is entitled to an award for damages for deprivation of possession during the aforementioned period of time; and

(2) DENY Emerita Munoz's petition in G.R. No. 146718 for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the Decision dated September 29, 2000 and Resolution dated January 5, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019, which in turn, affirmed the Orders dated August 21, 1995 and October 3, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95 of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-28580.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J.,  (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), pp. 67-74; penned by Associate Justice Jainal D. Rasul with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Eugenio S. Labitoria, concurring.

^[2] Id. at 101.

^[3] Id. at 75-94.

^[4] Id. at 95-100.

^[5] Rollo (G.R. No. 146718), pp. 61-72; penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring.

^[6] Id. at 73.

^[7] Id. at 127-130.

^[8] Id. at 111-126.

^[9] According to Yee L. Ching's Answer with Cross-Claim in Civil Case No. Q-28580, he was out of the country at the time he supposedly executed the Deed of Absolute Sale in Muñoz's favor.  Emilia M. Ching was somehow able to make it appear that her husband, Yee L. Ching, signed the said Deed of Absolute Sale.  When Yee L. Ching confronted Emilia M. Ching regarding the papers, Emilia M. Ching abandoned him.  Nonetheless, Yee L. Ching ratified the transfer of the subject property to Muñoz (Rollo [G.R. No. 142676], pp. 111-112).

^[10] Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), p. 102.

^[11] Id. at 113.

^[12] Rollo (G.R. No. 146718), p. 101.

^[13] Id.

^[14] Id. at 102-103.

^[15] Id. at 104-105.

^[16] Id. at 106-108.

^[17] Id.

^[18] Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), pp. 102-106.

^[19] Id. at 106.

^[20] Id. at 107-123.

^[21] Id. at 123.

^[22] Id. at 124.

^[23] Id. at 125-126.

^[24] Rollo (G.R. No. 146718), pp. 98-100.

^[25] Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), p. 127.

^[26] An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed.

^[27] Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), pp. 128-129.

^[28] Id. at 130-134.

^[29] Id. at 185-186.

^[30] Id. at 137-145.

^[31] Id. at 178-184.

^[32] Id. at 146-156.

^[33] Id. at 94.

^[34] Rollo (G.R. No. 146718), p. 110.

^[35] Id. at 111-126.

^[36] Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), pp. 102-106.

^[37] Rollo (G.R. No. 146718), p. 128.

^[38] Id. at 293.

^[39] Id. at 130.

^[40] Purported sale of the subject property by Muñoz to Emilia M. Ching.

^[41] Purported sale of the subject property by Emilia M. Ching to the spouses Go.

^[42] G.R. No. 146262, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 173.

^[43]   Id. at 190.

^[44] Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 426 Phil. 61, 86-87 (2002).

^[45] Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 332-333 (2002).

^[46] G.R. No. 95921, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 422.

^[47] Id. at 432-433.

^[48] Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 753, 765 (1998).

^[49] 492 Phil. 118 (2005), citing Pino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94114, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 434, 445; Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43972, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 735, 741; Duran v. Intermediate Appellate Court,  223 Phil. 88, 93-94 (1985).

^[50] Republic v. Agunoy, Sr., id. at 137-138.

^[51] G.R. No. 76265, April 22, 1992, 208 SCRA 215 and G.R. No. 76265, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 88.

^[52] 215 Phil. 593 (1984).

^[53] G.R. No. 143482, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 47.

^[54] Id. at 64-67.

^[55] Bañes v. Lutheran Church of the Philippines, 511 Phil. 458, 479-480 (2005).

^[56] Domalsin v. Valenciano, G.R. No. 158687, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 115, 132.

^[57] G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 492.

^[58] Id. at 510-511.

^[59] Go v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 214, 224 (1998).

^[60] Silverio, Jr. v. Filipino Business Consultants, Inc., 504 Phil. 150, 158 (2005).

^[61] United Coconut Planters Bank v. United Alloy Philippines Corporation, 490 Phil. 353, 363 (2005).

^[62] Bayview Hotel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119337, June 17, 1997, 273 SCRA 540, 547-548.

^[63] Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation v. Florentino, 372 Phil. 882, 890-891 (1999).