Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION .
.
ELIZA FRANCISCO
BAGGENSTOS,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
125560
December 4, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF ANTIPOLO, RIZAL,REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF
RIZAL, JOSEFINO DE GUZMANAND PACIFICO
MAGNO,
JR.,
Respondents.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The Case
This is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari[1]
of the resolution[2]
of the Court of Appeals dated 2 July 1996 in CA-G.R. SP No. 40579. The
Court of Appeals denied due course and dismissed petitioner Eliza
Francisco
Baggenstos' ("Baggenstos") Petition for Annulment of Judgments, Orders
and Writs with Damages for being insufficient in form and substance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Antecedents
On 6 September 1991,
private respondent Josefino de Guzman ("De Guzman") filed a complaint
against
Baggenstos to collect P85,000 representing the unpaid balance for the
renovation
of a house in Ponderosa Heights, Golden Hills, Antipolo, Rizal. The
case
was raffled to Branch 73 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal
("trial court") and docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2143.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On De Guzman's motion,
the trial court declared Baggenstos in default for failure to file an
answer
within the reglementary period and allowed De Guzman to present his
evidence
ex parte. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of De Guzman on 27
December 1991, disposing as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chan robles virtual law library
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering the
defendant
to pay the plaintiff:
1. P85,610.72 with
legal
interest to be computed from August 10, 1991 until the amount is fully
paid;
2. Attorney's fees
of
P15,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per court appearance;
3. Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
On 3 April 1992, the
trial
court issued a writ of execution after the judgment had become final
and
executory. Sheriff Eusebio J. Villaran levied on execution a parcel of
land with an area of 490 square meters in Antipolo, Rizal, registered
in
Baggenstos' name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 171720 ("TCT
No.
171720") of the Marikina Register of Deeds. On 5 May 1992, the sheriff
sold the parcel of land at public auction with private respondent
Pacifico
Magno, Jr. ("Magno") as the highest bidder at the price of P153,210.72,
equivalent to the total money judgment of P153,210.72 under the writ of
execution. The certificate of sale issued to Magno on 6 May 1992 was
registered
with the Marikina Register of Deeds on 16 October 1992. After the lapse
of the one-year redemption period, the sheriff executed on 18 November
1993 an Officer's Deed of Sale in Execution in Magno's favor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 19 January 1994,
Magno filed with the trial court a Petition to Compel Surrender Of
Withheld
Duplicate Certificate And for Issuance Of Writ Of Possession since
Baggenstos
refused to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 171720.
Baggenstos
filed a Comment and Opposition to Magno's petition claiming that the
default
judgment rendered against her by the trial court was void. Baggenstos
claimed
that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person due
to
improper service of summons. She contended that a purchaser at a sale
pursuant
to a void judgment is without title and redress. Baggenstos prayed that
the trial court issue an order declaring the default judgment dated 27
December 1991 void and dismissing Magno's petition for lack of factual
and legal basis. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In an Order dated 30
March 1995, the trial court granted Magno's Petition to Compel
Surrender
Of Withheld Duplicate Certificate And for Issuance Of Writ of
Possession.
The trial court held that substituted service of summons was validly
made
on Baggenstos resulting in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over
her person. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
premises considered and pursuant to Section 107 of P.D. 1529, the court
hereby orders defendant Eliza Francisco Baggenstos to surrender
Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 171721[3]
to the Register of Deeds for Marikina, Metro Manila within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of this order. Upon such surrender, the Register of
Deeds
concerned is hereby ordered to enter a new certificate or memorandum in
the name of herein petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, let
the corresponding writ of possession be issued in the above-entitled
case
in favor of the petitioner.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[4]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 19 June 1995, the
trial court issued a Writ of Possession[5]
ordering Deputy Sheriff Paulo M. Gatlabayan ("Sheriff Gatlabayan") to
place
Magno in physical possession of "the subject property." On the same
date,
Sheriff Gatlabayan issued a Notice to Vacate[6]
giving Baggenstos two days to vacate voluntarily the parcel of land. On
23 June 1995, Sheriff Gatlabayan submitted a report, which stated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is to
certify that on the 19th day of June 1995, the undersigned was directed
to enforce and implement the Writ of Possession, issued in the
above-entitled
case:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That specifically,
the
undersigned was ordered to place the petitioner, Pacifico T. Magno,
Jr.,
in physical possession of a parcel of land including all the
improvements
existing thereon, covered by TCT No. 171720 and situated in Ponderosa
Heights,
Golden Hills, Antipolo, Rizal;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That at about 4:00
p.m.
on the same date (June 19, 1995), the undersigned together with some
companions,
proceeded to the subject premises; the outer gate was not padlocked, so
we were able to enter the area surrounding the house; that the main
door
was locked and all the windows were closed; that no one was inside the
house; the latter woman showed up in the premises and informed me that
she was the caretaker (bantay) of Eliza Francisco Baggenstos; the said
caretaker gave her name as Myla Abenales;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That I was
informed
by the afore-named caretaker that the subject premises is presently not
being inhabited or occupied and that she (the caretaker) only takes
orders
from relatives of Eliza Francisco Baggenstos who resides in Quezon
City;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the
undersigned
and my companions left the subject premises at about 4:30 P.M. after
leaving
a copy of my NOTICE TO VACATE to the said caretaker whom I determined
to
be a person of sufficient discretion to receive the same. Attached is a
copy of my NOTICE TO VACATE where I gave Eliza Francisco Baggenstos and
all persons claiming rights under her two (2) days notice to vacate the
premises and remove her belongings from the house and should she fail
to
do so, then I would take those belongings out; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That I, together
with
some companions, went back to the subject premises yesterday, June 22,
1995, at about 10:00 A.M.; that my entry into the premises was
obstructed
by a padlocked main gate; that the aforenamed caretaker informed me
that
the day immediately following my service of my NOTICE TO VACATE, a
certain
relative of Eliza Francisco Baggenstos arrived in the premises and
padlocked
the main gate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That I could not
place
the winning party in possession of the premises because my entry into
the
subject premises was (illegible) or obstructed by padlocked main gate
and
main door under lock and key.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the same date,
Magno filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion For Issuance of Break-Open Order[8]
to authorize Sheriff Gatlabayan to use reasonable force to enforce the
writ of possession. On 3 July 1995, Baggenstos filed a Manifestation
and/or
Motion for Clarification[9]
stating that she owns two (2) adjoining lots in Ponderosa Subdivision,
Antipolo, Rizal. One lot has an area of 490 square meters under TCT No.
171720, while the other lot has an area of 233 square meters under TCT
No. 96923. Baggenstos alleged that the vacant lot covered by TCT No.
171720
was the one sold by the sheriff to satisfy a judgment debt and not the
other lot covered by TCT No. 96923 where her house stands.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, Magno
filed a Very Urgent Manifestation[10]
informing the trial court that execution proceedings in Civil Case No.
91-2341 have grounded to a halt. Magno prayed that the trial court
correct
the clerical error in the dispositive portion of its 30 March 1995
Order
to read as TCT No. 171720 instead of TCT No. 171721. Magno pointed out
that fortunately, the writ of execution correctly states that the
property
sold at public auction is covered by TCT No. 171720.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 10 August 1995,
the trial court issued an Order[11]
granting Magno's motion to issue a break-open order and denying
Baggenstos'
motion for clarification.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Baggenstos filed a
motion to reconsider the Orders dated 30 March 1995, 10 August 1995,
and
the Notice to Vacate dated 19 June 1995. Baggenstos reiterated that
while
it was her vacant lot covered by TCT No. 171720 that was sold at public
auction to Magno, the sheriff sought to enforce the assailed Orders
against
her other lot covered by TCT No. 96923. She prayed that the court set
aside
the questioned orders insofar as they affect the lot covered by TCT No.
96923.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the hearing of
Baggenstos'
motion for reconsideration, Magno's counsel agreed that the court
should
enforce the writs of execution and possession, as well as the notice to
vacate, against the vacant lot under TCT No. 171720 and not against the
lot with house covered by TCT No. 96923.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 15 November 1995,
the trial court issued an Order amending the 30 March 1995 Order, as
follows:
Acting on
the
motion dated July 20, 1995 filed by petitioner through counsel and
after
finding the reasons cited therein to be meritorious, the same is hereby
GRANTED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Wherefore, the
dispositive
portion of the order of the court dated March 30, 1995 is hereby
amended
to read as follows with the amendments as underlined below:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered and pursuant to Section 107 of P.D. 1529, the Court
hereby orders defendant Eliza Francisco Baggenstos to surrender
Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 171720 within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of
this order. Upon such surrender or non-surrender, the Register of Deeds
concerned is hereby ordered to enter a new certificate or memorandum in
the name of the herein petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED."[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dissatisfied,
Baggenstos
filed on 3 May 1996 a Petition for Annulment of Judgments, Orders and
Writs
with Damages[13]
docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP 4057. Baggenstos sought to annul the Orders
dated 30 March 1995, 10 August 1995, and 15 November 1995 ("Questioned
Orders"), as well the writ of possession and sheriff's notice to vacate
dated 19 June 1995, "insofar as the Baggenstos' lot with a house under
TCT No. 96923 is concerned."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals
denied due course and dismissed Baggenstos' petition.cralaw:red
Hence, the instant petition.
The Court of
Appeals'
Ruling
The Court of Appeals
pointed out that Baggenstos' Petition for Annulment of Judgments,
Orders
and Writs with Damages suffered from procedural defects and substantial
infirmities. First, Baggenstos did not attach to her petition an
affidavit
of merit supporting the cause of action as required by Section 1 (a),
Rule
6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals ("RIRCA").
Second,
Baggenstos' counsel, and not Baggenstos herself, signed the certificate
of non-forum shopping attached to the petition in violation of Supreme
Court Circular No. 28-91. Third, while Baggenstos denominated her
action
as a Petition for Annulment of Judgments, Orders and Writs, Baggenstos
does not actually seek to annul the default judgment of the trial
court.
Instead, the petition seeks to annul the processes in the
implementation
of the writ of execution issued pursuant to a final and executory
judgment.
The Court of Appeals explained that the execution of final and
executory
judgments could no longer be contested and prevented except in certain
instances,[14]
which do not obtain in the present case. Lastly, the proper remedy to
question
errors committed in the course of execution proceedings is either by
appeal
(writ of error or certiorari) or by a special civil action of
certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus. The Court of Appeals concluded that the
petition
is merely a subterfuge to prevent the execution of a final judgment.
The Issues
Baggenstos contends
that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in —
1.
Dismissing
the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 40579 for insufficiency in form and in
substance;
2. Not finding the
Questioned Orders of the trial court void insofar as the lot covered by
TCT No. 96923 is concerned since this was not the property sold by the
sheriff at public auction;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Not annulling the
Questioned Orders as well as the execution proceedings taken as against
the property covered by TCT No. 96923. The Court's
Ruling
We dismiss the petition
for being moot.cralaw:red
Baggenstos does not
dispute that the trial court's judgment had become final and executory.
This is so because Baggenstos failed to avail of the ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief to set aside the judgment.
Neither does Baggenstos question the levy on execution and subsequent
sale
at public auction of her lot covered by TCT No. 171720 to Magno in
satisfaction
of the trial court's judgment. Baggenstos' sole purpose in filing the
petitions
before the Court of Appeals and this Court is to protect and shield her
other property covered by TCT No. 96923 from the execution proceedings
in Civil Case No. 91-2143.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Baggenstos raises the
basic issue of whether the trial court's Questioned Orders, as well as
the writ of possession and the notice to vacate dated 19 June 1995, are
void as against her lot covered by TCT No. 96923.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Baggenstos' claim for
relief stems from the sheriff's mistaken attempt to enforce the writ of
possession against the lot with house covered by TCT No. 96923 instead
of the vacant lot covered by TCT No. 171720. On his first attempt, the
sheriff reported that he could not place Magno in possession of the lot
because the main door of the house was locked. On his second attempt,
the
sheriff reported that the main gate was also locked. He did not force
open
and destroy the locks. The execution proceedings came to a halt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the impasse in
the execution proceedings, Magno obtained a "break open" order from the
trial court. Baggenstos' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration
praying
that "the Orders dated March 30, 1995 and August 10, 1995, as well as
the
notice to vacate dated June 19, 1995 be set aside insofar as the lot
with
house under TCT No. 96923 is concerned."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the hearing of Baggenstos'
motion for reconsideration, Magno's counsel joined Baggenstos in asking
for the recall of the break-open order. Magno's counsel also agreed
that
the writ of possession and notice to vacate should be enforced on the
vacant
lot under TCT No. 171720. In due time, the Questioned Orders were
enforced
on the vacant lot under TCT No. 171720. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 18 January 1996,
the Marikina Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 171720 in Baggenstos'
name and issued a new Transfer Certificate of Title (No. 298711) in the
name of Magno (married to June Andrea Singson-Magno). Magno has since
been
in possession of the parcel of land. This has stripped the case of its
raison d'etre. The relief sought by Baggenstos is a fait accompli since
execution proceeded to completion with respect to her lot covered by
TCT
No. 171720.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stated differently,
De Guzman's default judgment of P153,210.72 was fully satisfied when
Magno
purchased at public auction the lot covered by TCT No. 171720 for
P153,210.72.
That lot is now registered in the name of Magno. Consequently,
Baggenstos'
other lot covered by TCT No. 96923 is now beyond the reach of any
coercive
writ, order or process arising from De Guzman's default judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rule is that where
the issues have become moot, there is no justiciable controversy.
Resolution
of the case would serve no practical use. Obviously, the assailed
Resolution
of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed Baggenstos' Petition for
Annulment
of Judgments, Orders and Writs, has become inconsequential. Baggenstos
is no longer entitled to any actual and substantial relief that the
dismissal
of her petition could negate.[15]
Whatever the courts, including this Court, say on the issues raised in
her petition constitutes opinion on academic issues.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since the Marikina Register
of Deeds, on 6 January 1966, cancelled TCT No. 171720 and issued a new
title in Magno's name, Baggenstos' counsels had ample opportunity to
know
that supervening events had rendered her petitions moot. These
supervening
events should have precluded the filing of the petition before the
Court
of Appeals in May 1996 and the instant petition in August 1996.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We admonish Baggenstos'
counsels to stop filing unnecessary and frivolous petitions that
further
clog the courts' dockets. True, lawyers owe devotion to the interest of
their clients, and must exert zeal in the defense of their client's
rights.
However, lawyers should not forget that as officers of the court they
are
under obligation to exert utmost effort to assist in the speedy and
efficient
administration of justice. Thus, lawyers should not misuse the rules of
procedure to defeat the ends of justice, unduly delay a case or impede
the execution of a judgment.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, We DISMISS
the petition for being moot. We ADMONISH Atty. Nicolas M. De Guzman and
Atty. Fortunato R. Balasbas, counsels for petitioner Eliza Francisco
Baggenstos,
for filing the patently frivolous petitions. We WARN them that a
repetition
of such acts in the future will merit a more severe sanction.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. with Associate
Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Artemio G. Tuquero, concurring.
[3]
Clerical error, should be TCT No. 171720.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 45–48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid., p. 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ibid., p. 50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid., pp. 52–53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid., 54–55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid., pp. 58–60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Ibid., pp. 61–62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Ibid., p. 67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Under Section 9(2), B.P. Blg. 129.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Instances when an error may be committed in the course of execution
proceedings
prejudicial to the rights of a party which call for correction by a
superior
court —
a. the writ of execution varies the judgment;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b. there has been a change in the situation of the parties making
execution
inequitable or unjust;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c. execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from
execution;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d. it appears that the controversy has never been submitted to the
judgment
of the court;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
e. the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains
room
for interpretation thereof; orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
f. it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued,
or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong
party,
or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the
writ was issued without authority. Limpin, Jr. v. Intermediate
Appellate
Court, G.R. No. L-70987, 30 January 1987, 147 SCRA 516.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 108033, 14
April
1997, 271 SCRA 204.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Garcia v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 121139, 12 July 1996, 258
SCRA
754.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. CA, 355 Phil. 369 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |