Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > October 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-76737 October 27, 1988 - PANFILO OLIVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-76737. October 27, 1988.]

SPOUSES PANFILO and PERLITA OLIVA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES SALVADOR and PATRIA ANG, Respondents.

Quiason, Makalintal, Barot & Torres Law Offices, for Petitioners.

Alfredo I. Molo for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENTS AND EXECUTION; INTERVENTION; AS A RULE, ALLOWED ONLY BEFORE OR DURING TRIAL; CASE AT BAR NOT AN EXCEPTION. — It is axiomatic that intervention is legally possible only "before or during a trial," and therefore a motion for intervention filed after trial — and a fortiori, when the case has already been submitted, when judgment has been rendered, or worse, when judgment is already final and executory — should be denied. The resolution of this Court in Director of Lands v. C.A. and Bernal, is inapplicable; for while it is true that there, intervention was allowed long after trial (on appeal, in fact), that was because the intervenors were indispensable parties and in light of the peculiar circumstances of the case, there was need to preserve the "indefeasibility and stability of the Torrens System," an "aspect of the case" "overrid(ing) any question of late intervention." These exceptional factors are evidently not present in the case at bar.

2. ID.; ID.; AUCTION SALE; RETROACTS TO THE TIME OF LEVY. — The priority in the registration of the Angs’ levy on preliminary attachment gave them superiority and preference in rights over the attached property as against the Olivases. The fact that the execution sale in favor of the Olivas Spouses has already taken place does not help the Olivases’ cause one bit. In virtue of that sale, the Olivases acquired the rights of the judgment debtors over the property sold subject to the prior lien annotated on the title thereof in favor of the Angs. Since it is also axiomatic that an auction sale retroacts to the date of levy, the subsequent execution sale pursuant to the judgment in favor of the Angs, would retroact to the time of their levy, which was anterior and superior to that of the Olivases. The Olivases’ theory that they had acquired title to the property to the exclusion of the Angs cannot therefore be sustained. Whatever rights had been acquired by them by virtue of the execution sale, to repeat, were subject and subordinate to the lien in favor of the Angs, and to the rights resulting and subsequently arising from the enforcement of that lien.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, J.:


The appeal at bar concerns conflicting claims by two (2) creditors of the same debtor over the latter’s property which they had caused to be seized under writs of preliminary attachment issued in the actions respectively instituted by them.chanrobles law library : red

The property, a house and lot, was owned at the time by the Spouses Arturo and Elsa Co, and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20374 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. The first levy on attachment was annotated on the title as Entry No. 93433 on July 18, 1983 at 9:45 o’clock in the morning, the writ emanating from Branch 154 of the Regional Trial Court at Pasig, Rizal, in connection with Civil Case No. 49865 entitled Spouses Salvador and Patricia Ang v. Spouses Arturo and Elsa Co." 1 The second levy was annotated on the title as Entry No. 93484 on July 18, 1983 at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the attachment writ having been issued by Branch 153 of the same Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 49962 entitled "Spouses Perlita and Panfilo Oliva v. Spouses Elsa and Arturo Co." 2

Judgment by compromise was rendered in Civil Case No. 49962 (Olivas Spouses v. Co Spouses) on July 27, 1983. 3 A writ of execution subsequently issued, which was enforced against the attached property. 4 The property was conveyed to the Olivas Spouses as the highest bidders at the execution sale held on October 4, 1984. 5 The Co Spouses, as judgment debtors, failed to redeem the property within the one-year period provided by law; 6 consequently, a Deed of Final Sale was executed by the sheriff in favor of the Oliva Spouses on December 21, 1984. 7

On March 4, 1985, a decision based on compromise was also rendered in Civil Case No. 49865 in favor of the plaintiffs, the Spouses Ang, against the defendants, said Co Spouses. 8 Alleging failure of the Co Spouses to comply with the judgment, the Angs filed a "Motion for Execution and Appointment of Special Sheriff . . ." 9

The Olivas Spouses sought to prevent the execution prayed for. They filed on April 7, 1985 (in Civil Case No. 49865) an "Urgent Motion for Intervention and Opposition to Motion for Execution," arguing that the Compromise Agreement between the Angs and the Cos, dated February 25, 1985 — in virtue of which, among others, the Cos bound themselves to pay the Angs P480,000.00 and granted to them the right "to take possession of the house which has been under attachment . . . if only to preserve its value" — was null and void because they (the Olivas Spouses) were already the owners of said house and the lot covered by TCT No. 20374. 10

The Angs disputed the validity of the Olivas’ contentions. They asserted that the attempt to intervene came much too late, intervention being allowed only "before or during a trial," but not afterwards (Section 2, Rule 12, Rules of Court). They also pointed out that the Olivases’ right over the property, as attaching creditor and as highest bidder at the subsequent execution sale, was subject and subordinate to the prior attachment lien in their (the Angs’) favor — their lien having been registered in the Property Registry at 9:45 A.M., July 18, 1983, whereas that of the Olivases had been recorded at 3:00 P.M. on the same day.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The Trial Court resolved the issue in favor of the Olivas Spouses. Its Order dated May 16, 1985 permitted the filing by said spouses of a complaint-in-intervention, 11 and its Order of June 7, 1985 denied the Angs’ motion for reconsideration. 12

These orders of May 16, 1985 and June 7, 1985 were however nullified and set aside by the Court of Appeals, in a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition filed by the Angs shortly after their rendition. By judgment promulgated on August 29, 1986, the Appellate Court 13 declared that the decision in Civil Case No. 49865 had become final and executory; hence, intervention was no longer permissible, being allowed only before or during a trial; and the Angs, as prevailing parties, were entitled to execution as a matter of right. 14 It is this judgment of the Appellate Court which the petitioners plead to be overturned by this Court in the present appeal. The judgment will however be sustained, being in accord with the relevant facts and settled doctrine.chanrobles law library : red

It is indeed axiomatic, as the Court of Appeals stressed, that intervention is legally possible only "before or during a trial," and therefore a motion for intervention filed after trial — and a fortiori, when the case has already been submitted, when judgment has been rendered, or worse, when judgment is already final and executory — should be denied. 15 The resolution of this Court in Director of Lands v. C.A. and Bernal, 16 is inapplicable; for while it is true that there, intervention was allowed long after trial (on appeal, in fact), that was because the intervenors were indispensable parties and in light of the peculiar circumstances of the case, there was need to preserve the "indefeasibility and stability of the Torrens System," an "aspect of the case" "overrid(ing) any question of late intervention." 17 These exceptional factors are evidently not present in the case at bar.

Besides, the theory by which the Olivases attempt to justify their intervention is clearly untenable. The priority in the registration of the Angs’ levy on preliminary attachment gave them superiority and preference in rights over the attached property as against the Olivases. The fact that the execution sale in favor of the Olivas Spouses has already taken place does not help the Olivases’ cause one bit. In virtue of that sale, the Olivases acquired the rights of the judgment debtors over the property sold subject to the prior lien annotated on the title thereof in favor of the Angs. Since it is also axiomatic that an auction sale retroacts to the date of levy, 18 the subsequent execution sale pursuant to the judgment in favor of the Angs, would retroact to the time of their levy, which was anterior and superior to that of the Olivases. The Olivases’ theory that they had acquired title to the property to the exclusion of the Angs cannot therefore be sustained. Whatever rights had been acquired by them by virtue of the execution sale, to repeat, were subject and subordinate to the lien in favor of the Angs, and to the rights resulting and subsequently arising from the enforcement of that lien. The right of the Angs to a writ of execution in the premises, and to have the property attached sold for the satisfaction of the judgment in their favor cannot be gainsaid.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioners. This decision is immediately executory.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 22-23.

2. Id.

3. Rollo, pp. 37-38.

4. Id., p. 39.

5. Id., p. 23.

6. Secs. 29, 30, Rule 39, Rules of Court.

7. Rollo, pp. 40-41. Title was afterwards consolidated in the Olivas’ names, on March 11, 1985 (Rollo, p. 42).

8. Id., pp. 46-47.

9. Id., pp. 49-50.

10. Id., pp. 51-54.

11. Id., p. 65.

12. Ibid.

13. Fourth Division; Nocom, J., ponente, Purisima and Ramirez, JJ., concurring.

14. Rollo, p. 24.

15. Sec. 2, Rule 12, Rules of Court; SEE Ong v. Tating, G.R. No. L-61042, April 15, 1987; SEE also, Felismino v. Gloria, 47 Phil. 967; De Borja v. Jugo, 64 Phil. 464, 468-9; El Hogar Filipino v. National Bank, 64 Phil. 582, 587; Lim Tek Goan v. Azores, 76 Phil. 363; Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. Tan, 46 O.G. [Supp. 11] 184; Serrano, Et. Al. v. Palacio, Et Al., C.A., Aug. 31, 1955, 52 O.G. 260, all cited in Feria J., Civil Procedure, 1969 ed., p. 266, which also cites Falcasantos v. Falcasantos, L-4627, May 13, 1952 [5 Rep. of the Phil. Digest, p. 476 Sec. 48] in which intervention was allowed although the case was already submitted for decision because the intervenors were clearly indispensable parties.

16. 93 SCRA 238, promulgated Sept. 25, 1979.

17. At p. 248. This Court observed that the denial of intervention would lead to injustice and "open the door to fraud, falsehood and misrepresentation;" "chaos and confusion" would arise "from a situation where the certificates of title of the movants covering large areas of land overlap or encroach on properties the title to which is being sought to be reconstituted;" (p. 246) and there would be a consequent "swamping of the courts and the clogging of their dockets with cases involving not only the original parties and the movants but also their successors-in interest."cralaw virtua1aw library

18. SEE Hernandez v. Katigbak, 69 Phil. 744, 749; Vargas v. Tancioco, 39 O.G. (No. 28), 651 [67 Phil. 308, 311]; Philippine Executive Commission v. Abadilla, 74 Phil. 68, 69, cited in Feria, op. cit., pp. 595-596.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25350 October 4, 1988 - WILLIAM A. CHITTICK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38039 October 4, 1988 - GENEROSA CAWIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67785 October 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CAPINPIN, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3005 October 5, 1988 - EMILIA P. FORNILDA-OLILI v. SERGIO I. AMONOY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988 - IN RE: RODOLFO U. MANZANO

  • G.R. No. L-36549 October 5, 1988 - FAR EAST REALTY INVESTMENT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40324 October 5, 1988 - JOSE O. SIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51625 October 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO DUMLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70458 October 5, 1988 - BENJAMIN SALVOSA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72306 October 5, 1988 - DAVID P. FORNILDA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IVTH JUDICIAL REGION, PASIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75927 October 5, 1988 - LAND AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32215 October 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-68117 October 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF FELINO T. SANTIAGO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39299 October 18, 1988 - ISAAC PANGAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41380 October 18, 1988 - ORLANDO LAGAZON v. VISIA P. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44696 October 18, 1988 - JULIAN ESPIRITU v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46843 October 18, 1988 - VIRGILIA CABRESOS, ET AL. v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50872 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PARAGOSO

  • G.R. No. L-53552 October 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55377 October 18, 1988 - BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. CECILIO F. BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61961 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS MARCIALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69679 October 18, 1988 - VIOLETA CABATBAT LIM, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69723 October 18, 1988 - APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70836 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO M. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-74675 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

  • G.R. No. 75198 October 18, 1988 - SCHMID & OBERLY, INC. v. RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 75311 October 18, 1988 - ROSITA ZAFRA BANTILLO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75336 October 18, 1988 - ANTONIO BORNALES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76633 October 18, 1988 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77242 October 18, 1988 - ROMEO ZOLETA v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77278 October 18, 1988 - IN RE: FELLY LEE FONG SHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-78133 October 18, 1988 - MARIANO P. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79237 October 18, 1988 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80231 October 18, 1988 - CELSO A. FERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82811 October 18, 1988 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AUGUSTO B. BREVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57937 October 21, 1988 - WILFREDO R. ANTONIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-64673 October 21, 1988 - A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78391 October 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-83996 October 21, 1988 - CITY FISCAL OF TACLOBAN v. PEDRO S. ESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71404-09 October 26, 1988 - HERMILO RODIS, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73199 October 26, 1988 - RENATO SARA, ET AL. v. CERILA AGARRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76737 October 27, 1988 - PANFILO OLIVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81470 October 27, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TUNHAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-83767 October 27, 1988 - FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, ET AL. v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

  • G.R. No. L-84592 October 27, 1988 - ESTHER E. CUERDO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. L-39008 October 28, 1988 - PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49535 October 28, 1988 - ROMANA M. CRUZ v. FRANCISCO TANTUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51745 October 28, 1988 - RAMON F. SAYSON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55188 October 28, 1988 - JESUS LONTOC v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60674 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PUTITO CAFE

  • G.R. No. L-62341 October 28, 1988 - JORGE WEE SIT, ET AL. v. OMAR U. AMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69875 October 28, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71177 October 28, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72281 October 28, 1988 - MACARIO LAGMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72622 October 28, 1988 - VICTOR TORNO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75955 October 28, 1988 - MARIA LINDA FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76991 October 28, 1988 - HERMENEGILDO L. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77206 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON M. SOLOMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79043 October 28, 1988 - DOMINGO T. ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-79369-70 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER A. QUIDILLA

  • G.R. No. L-79958 October 28, 1988 - EMILIANA BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. CAROLINA C. GRIÑO-AQUINO, ET AL.