September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175994 : September 29, 2010] JESUS CAMPOS AND ROSEMARIE CAMPOS-BAUTISTA V. NENITA BUENVENIDA PASTRANA, ROGER BUENVENIDA, SONIA BUENVENIDA, TEDDY BUENVENIDA, VICTOR BUENVENIDA, HARRY BUENVENIDA, MILDRED BUENVENIDA. MANOLITO BUENVENIDA AND DAISY BUENVENIDA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY'-IN-FACT, CARLITO BUENVENIDA :
[G.R. No. 175994 : September 29, 2010]
JESUS CAMPOS AND ROSEMARIE CAMPOS-BAUTISTA V. NENITA BUENVENIDA PASTRANA, ROGER BUENVENIDA, SONIA BUENVENIDA, TEDDY BUENVENIDA, VICTOR BUENVENIDA, HARRY BUENVENIDA, MILDRED BUENVENIDA. MANOLITO BUENVENIDA AND DAISY BUENVENIDA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY'-IN-FACT, CARLITO BUENVENIDA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 September 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 175994 - Jesus Campos and Rosemarie Campos-Bautista v. Nenita Buenvenida Pastrana, Roger Buenvenida, Sonia Buenvenida, Teddy Buenvenida, Victor Buenvenida, Harry Buenvenida, Mildred Buenvenida. Manolito Buenvenida and Daisy Buenvenida, represented by their Attorney'-in-Fact, Carlito Buenvenida
For resolution is respondents' a) Motion to Correct/Clarify the Affirmed Decision of the Court of Appeals;[1] and b) Manifestation Acknowledging Receipt of Entry of Judgment and Motion to Remand Records to the Court of Appeals for Purposes of Execution.
To recall, on December 8, 2009, this Court rendered a Decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.[2]
In denying the petition, the Court in effect affirmed the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), the dispositive portion of which reads:
On April 27, 2010, respondents as the prevailing parties, filed the instant Motion to Correct/Clarify the Affirmed Decision of the Court of Appeals. Respondents alleged that:
1. The properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-26092 and T-26093 in the name of Rosemarie Campos (Rosemarie) are situated in Roxas City[5] and not in the Province of Capiz. Hence, respondents pray that the dispositive portion of the affirmed CA's Decision be corrected by ordering the Register of Deeds of Roxas City, instead of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Capiz, to cancel the said titles and restore the same in the name of the previous owner Carlito Campos.[6]
2. One of the subject titles, TCT No. 26092, despite the Notice of Lis Pendens annotated thereon was the subject of a mortgage between petitioner Rosemarie and Francisco Elagor.[7] Subsequently, the said property was foreclosed with Francisco Elagor emerging as the prevailing party.[8] A new title, TCT No. T-56655, was issued on June 25, 2008 in favor of Francisco Elagor during the pendency of the instant case before this Court.[9] In this connection, respondents pray that the Register of Deeds of Roxas City be likewise ordered to cancel TCT No. T-56655 in the name of Francisco Elagor.
Correction of Clerical Errors
In Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals,[10] this Court held that with regard to final judgments:
The instant motion merely involved the correction of clerical errors.
A perusal of the records reveals that petitioners attached, as Annex "C," the Deed of Absolute Sale for TCT Nos. T-18205 and T-18417, indicating the location of the properties as Roxas City.[11] On the basis of the said Deed, TCT Nos. T-26093 and T-26092, respectively, were issued by the Register of Deeds for the City of Roxas, both registered in the name of petitioner Rosemarie.[12]
However, in the November 23, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which was affirmed by this Court on December 8, 2009, it was indicated that the said TCTs were registered in the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Capiz instead of the City of Roxas. A correction of these clerical errors is proper under the circumstances.
Execution of the Decision dated December 8, 2009 notwithstanding the mortgage between petitioner Rosemarie and Francisco Elagor and the foreclosure of the said mortgage with the latter as the prevailing bidder
Despite the presence of a Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on TCT No. T-26092, petitioner Rosemarie mortgaged the same to Francisco Elagor (Elagor) (Entry No. 85852) who subsequently foreclosed the same. TCT No. T~26092 was cancelled and a new title, TCT No. T-56655 was issued. The Notice of Lis Pendens was carried over to this new title TCT No. T-56655.
In our Decision dated December 8, 2009, we held that the sale of the subject properties, including the property registered under TCT No. T-26092, to the herein petitioner, Rosemarie, was null and void. Having no rights over the property registered under TCT No. T-26092, Rosemarie could not have validly entered into a mortgage with Francisco Elagor.
We held in The Malayan Bank v. Lagrama[13] that "[a] transferee pendente lite stands exactly in the shoes of the transferor and is bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against the transferor; his title is subject to the incidents and results of the pending litigation, and his transfer certificate of title will, in that respect, afford him no special protection." In Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon,[14] this Court ruled that "a writ of execution may be issued against a person not a party to the case where the latter's remedy which he did not avail of was to intervene in the case involving rights over the same parcel of land of which he claims to be the vendee."
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion to Correct/Clarify the Affirmed Decision of the Court of Appeals is GRANTED. The Register of Deeds of Roxas City, and not the Register of Deeds of the Province of Capiz, is ordered to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-26092 and T-26093 in the name of Rosemaire Campos and to restore the same in the name of the previous owner Carlito Campos. The Register of Deeds of Roxas City is ordered to cancel the derivative title of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26092 or Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-56655 in the name of Francisco Elagor and to restore the same in the name of the previous owner, Carlito Campos. Respondents' Manifestation Acknowledging Receipt of Entry of Judgment and Motion to Remand Records to the Court of Appeals For Purposes of Execution is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 175994 - Jesus Campos and Rosemarie Campos-Bautista v. Nenita Buenvenida Pastrana, Roger Buenvenida, Sonia Buenvenida, Teddy Buenvenida, Victor Buenvenida, Harry Buenvenida, Mildred Buenvenida. Manolito Buenvenida and Daisy Buenvenida, represented by their Attorney'-in-Fact, Carlito Buenvenida
For resolution is respondents' a) Motion to Correct/Clarify the Affirmed Decision of the Court of Appeals;[1] and b) Manifestation Acknowledging Receipt of Entry of Judgment and Motion to Remand Records to the Court of Appeals for Purposes of Execution.
To recall, on December 8, 2009, this Court rendered a Decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.[2]
In denying the petition, the Court in effect affirmed the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 14, dated August 21, 2000 in Civil Case No. V-7028 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Capiz who is hereby ordered to cancel Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-26092 and T-26093 in the name of Rosemarie Campos, and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-23248 and 23249 in the name of Jesus Campos and restore said titles in the name of the previous owner, Carlito Campos.The said Decision became final and executory with Entry of Judgment made on January 29, 2010.[4]
SO ORDERED.[3]
On April 27, 2010, respondents as the prevailing parties, filed the instant Motion to Correct/Clarify the Affirmed Decision of the Court of Appeals. Respondents alleged that:
1. The properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-26092 and T-26093 in the name of Rosemarie Campos (Rosemarie) are situated in Roxas City[5] and not in the Province of Capiz. Hence, respondents pray that the dispositive portion of the affirmed CA's Decision be corrected by ordering the Register of Deeds of Roxas City, instead of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Capiz, to cancel the said titles and restore the same in the name of the previous owner Carlito Campos.[6]
2. One of the subject titles, TCT No. 26092, despite the Notice of Lis Pendens annotated thereon was the subject of a mortgage between petitioner Rosemarie and Francisco Elagor.[7] Subsequently, the said property was foreclosed with Francisco Elagor emerging as the prevailing party.[8] A new title, TCT No. T-56655, was issued on June 25, 2008 in favor of Francisco Elagor during the pendency of the instant case before this Court.[9] In this connection, respondents pray that the Register of Deeds of Roxas City be likewise ordered to cancel TCT No. T-56655 in the name of Francisco Elagor.
Correction of Clerical Errors
In Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals,[10] this Court held that with regard to final judgments:
Nothing is more settled in the law than that when a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void. (Emphasis supplied.)
The instant motion merely involved the correction of clerical errors.
A perusal of the records reveals that petitioners attached, as Annex "C," the Deed of Absolute Sale for TCT Nos. T-18205 and T-18417, indicating the location of the properties as Roxas City.[11] On the basis of the said Deed, TCT Nos. T-26093 and T-26092, respectively, were issued by the Register of Deeds for the City of Roxas, both registered in the name of petitioner Rosemarie.[12]
However, in the November 23, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which was affirmed by this Court on December 8, 2009, it was indicated that the said TCTs were registered in the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Capiz instead of the City of Roxas. A correction of these clerical errors is proper under the circumstances.
Execution of the Decision dated December 8, 2009 notwithstanding the mortgage between petitioner Rosemarie and Francisco Elagor and the foreclosure of the said mortgage with the latter as the prevailing bidder
Despite the presence of a Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on TCT No. T-26092, petitioner Rosemarie mortgaged the same to Francisco Elagor (Elagor) (Entry No. 85852) who subsequently foreclosed the same. TCT No. T~26092 was cancelled and a new title, TCT No. T-56655 was issued. The Notice of Lis Pendens was carried over to this new title TCT No. T-56655.
In our Decision dated December 8, 2009, we held that the sale of the subject properties, including the property registered under TCT No. T-26092, to the herein petitioner, Rosemarie, was null and void. Having no rights over the property registered under TCT No. T-26092, Rosemarie could not have validly entered into a mortgage with Francisco Elagor.
We held in The Malayan Bank v. Lagrama[13] that "[a] transferee pendente lite stands exactly in the shoes of the transferor and is bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against the transferor; his title is subject to the incidents and results of the pending litigation, and his transfer certificate of title will, in that respect, afford him no special protection." In Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon,[14] this Court ruled that "a writ of execution may be issued against a person not a party to the case where the latter's remedy which he did not avail of was to intervene in the case involving rights over the same parcel of land of which he claims to be the vendee."
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion to Correct/Clarify the Affirmed Decision of the Court of Appeals is GRANTED. The Register of Deeds of Roxas City, and not the Register of Deeds of the Province of Capiz, is ordered to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-26092 and T-26093 in the name of Rosemaire Campos and to restore the same in the name of the previous owner Carlito Campos. The Register of Deeds of Roxas City is ordered to cancel the derivative title of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26092 or Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-56655 in the name of Francisco Elagor and to restore the same in the name of the previous owner, Carlito Campos. Respondents' Manifestation Acknowledging Receipt of Entry of Judgment and Motion to Remand Records to the Court of Appeals For Purposes of Execution is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 184-196.
[2] Id. at 175.
[3] Id. at 39.
[4] Id. at 179.
[5] Id. at 185.
[6] Id. at 187.
[7] Id. at 185.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] 491 Phil. 81, 91 (2005) citing Nunal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94005, April 6, 1993, 221 SCRA 26, 32.
[11] Rollo, p. 42
[12] Id. at 44-45.
[13] 409 Phil. 493, 504 (2001) citing Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109078, December 26, 1995, 251 SCRA 509, 514.
[14] 372 Phil. 82, 91-92 (1999) citing Using v. Plan, 218 Phil. 176, 183 (1984).
