SECOND DIVISION
|
MANUEL
REFUERZO and MELCHOR JULOYA, Petitioners, - versus - HEIRS OF THE LATE FRANCISCO REFUERZO, SR.,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 162442 Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: October 23, 2006 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside
in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the February
24, 2004 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 69874 affirming the orders issued by Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union in its Civil Case No. A-1978, granting execution pending appeal in favor of the herein respondent Heirs
of the Late Francisco Refuerzo, Sr.
The main case – Civil Case No. A-1978
– from whence sprung the affirmed orders of
execution pending appeal is an action for
Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Annulment of
Deeds, Titles and Tax Declarations and Damages filed by the respondent heirs against the herein petitioners Manuel Refuerzo and Melchor Juloya. Involved in that suit is a parcel
of land of about eighteen
thousand four hundred and eight (18,408) square meters located at San Eugenio Aringay, La
Union and covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-3184 (8325) in the name of Francisco Refuerzo, Sr. The respondent heirs claimed ownership of the same land as the legal heirs
of its registered owner, the late Francisco Refuerzo, Sr.
In
their complaint, the heirs, as plaintiffs, alleged that petitioner Manuel Refuerzo, under the pretense of being the son of
the late Francisco Refuerzo, Sr., deceitfully and maliciously executed an Affidavit of Adjudication adjudicating unto himself the one-half (½) southern portion
of the property subject of the suit and thereafter sold said portion to his co-petitioner Melchor Juloya via a Deed of Sale of Real Property dated October 19, 1995, even as Juloya knew that the land was registered in the name of respondent heirs; and that of December
19, 1995, Manuel again executed a deed of sale, this time disposing of a western portion of the property in favor of Gina R. Parentila and
Edna P. Gatchalian. The
plaintiff heirs alleged
that in all these
transactions, the respective transferees knew that they (the heirs) were the registered owners of the property sold, hence all the aforementioned conveyances were null and void, the buyers being purchasers in bad faith.
In the same complaint, the respondent heirs further claim that the issuance of tax declarations in favor of the
transferees and the cancellation of OCT No. RO-3184 (8325) and the resulting Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. T-46214, T-46215 and T-46216
issued in the name of
the transferees were
null and void, and that despite demands to restore possession and ownership of the land in question,
petitioners Manuel
Refuerzo and Melchor Juloya refused to surrender possession or to effect the cancellation of all the derivative titles, deeds of
conveyances and tax
declarations, thereby
depriving the respondent heirs of their beneficial use of the property in dispute.
On
the other hand, the petitioners, as defendants a quo, countered that Manuel
Refuerzo is the surviving son and legal heir of the late Francisco Refuerzo,
Sr. Hence, upon the demise of Francisco Refuerzo, Sr., Manuel succeeded and
became the owner of the subject property which he thereafter adjudicated unto
himself in good faith; and that as new owner of the property, he sold the same to Melchor Juloya who
subsequently caused the subdivision thereof and transferred the subdivided
portions for value to the other transferees who are buyers in good faith.
In
a decision dated
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment in
favor of plaintiffs and against defendants.
This Court declares the Affidavit of Adjudication dated
Consequently, it is ordered that all documents executed,
issued or made flowing from said herein-nullified affidavit of adjudication are
also annulled. This includes the Deed of Sale of Portion of Land dated
The Register of Deeds of La
Original Certificate of Title No. Ro-3184 (8325) should
be restored. The Register of Deeds is ordered to do so.
The newly-issued duplicate copy thereof is voided.
Defendants Melchor Juloya and Manuel Refuerzo are ordered to pay plaintiff’s (sic) attorney's fees in the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00). They are also ordered to pay TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00) in litigation expenses. In addition, the two (2) defendants
mentioned (Melchor Juloya and Manuel Refuerzo) are ordered to pay plaintiffs
jointly and severally the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) in moral
damages.
SO ORDERED.
On
1.
That the
trial court has no jurisdiction over the original case;
2.
That the
issue of filiation of Manuel Refuerzo was never raised in the complaint and
thus the trial court erred in disputing his legitimacy;
3.
That the
property right of Francisco Refuerzo was automatically transmitted upon his
death in favor of Manuel;
4.
That the
court erred in declaring that Manuel is not a son of Francisco; that being a
legitimate son of Francisco, the conveyances made in favor of third persons
were valid and effective;
5.
That
upon the death of the mother of the plaintiffs (children of the first marriage
with Francisco), the conjugal partnership was terminated that resulted to ½
share to Francisco and the other ½ to the children of the first marriage; and
6.
That the
second marriage of Francisco to Maria Rulloda created a new conjugal property
relationship and out of the marriage, Manuel was born who automatically
succeeded to said properties decreed in OCT No. RO-3184.
In an order dated
In the determination of whether the deeds or
instruments have to be annulled, specifically the Affidavit of Adjudication,
the issue as to whether Manuel Refuerzo is a legitimate child of Francisco
Refuerzo and Maria Rulloda has to be passed upon. It appears, as was found by
the Court, that Manuel Refuerzo is the son of Romeo Refuerzo and therefore a
grandson of Francisco Refuerzo Sr.
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Moreover, as observed by Atty. Pablo M. Olarte, this
Motion for Reconsideration was filed by a counsel purporting to be a co-counsel
when in fact as a matter of record, Atty. Lazaro C. Gayo, is still the chief
counsel on record, without the latter's approval or conformity for orderly representation.
Atty. Olarte argued that the Motion filed by Atty. Raul
dela Cruz is a mere scrap of paper.
SO ORDERED.
Alleging
that they received a copy of the aforequoted order only on
Meanwhile,
in an Order dated
Let a writ of execution issue in accordance
with the dispositive portion of the decision of this Court dated
SO ORDERED.
On
January 5, 2002, the petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the aforequoted Order of execution pending appeal, which motion was
denied by the trial court in its subsequent Order of January 23, 2002.
Petitioners, alleging that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing its orders of December 19, 2001 and
January 23, 2002, went on certiorari to the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 69874, assailing the said orders of the trial court.
As stated at the outset thereof, the CA, in
its decision of
WHEREFORE, the foregoing
considered, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed orders of public
respondent AFFIRMED in toto.
SO
ORDERED.
Hence,
petitioners’ present recourse raising the following issues:
1.
Whether
the CA overstepped its jurisdiction in affirming the issuance of the contested
writ of execution pending appeal committed by the RTC without passing judgment
upon the issue of jurisdiction and propriety of the action raised by
petitioner;
2.
Whether
the RTC and CA erred in declaring petitioner Manuel Refuerzo as not the son of
the deceased Francisco Refuerzo, Sr., married to the late Maria Rulloda
although he (sic) has no authority or jurisdiction to do so;
3.
Whether
or not the RTC and CA have jurisdiction or authority to declare the birth
certificate of petitioner as null and void;
4.
Whether
Article 170 of the New Civil Code bars respondents from impugning the
legitimacy of petitioner Manuel Refuerzo;
5.
Whether
the RTC and CA erred in not dismissing the complaint considering that the
nature of the case was that of an intestate estate proceeding; and
6.
Whether
the RTC and CA erred in declaring all adjudication and deeds of sale as null
and void ab initio considering that he (sic) has no authority.
We
DENY.
First and foremost, it must be emphatically made clear herein that
what the petitioners assail in these proceedings is the CA decision affirming the RTC’s orders granting execution pending appeal, and not the very decision
itself dated October 31, 2001 of the RTC on the merits of the main case.
It is, therefore, misplaced and procedurally
improper for the petitioners to inject into
this petition arguments which undoubtedly pertain to the trial court’s main decision of
In this connection, we note that an
appeal was precisely
taken to the CA by the petitioners from the trial court’s main
decision of
period. In fact, an entry of judgment[3] in CA-G.R. CV No. 7641 was already made by the appellate
court on
In resolving this petition, we shall, therefore, confine our discussion on
the propriety of the trial
court’s Order of
We
rule and so hold, as did the CA, that the challenged orders of the trial court were issued very much within its
jurisdiction and pursuant to Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Section 2. Discretionary execution. -
(a) Execution of a judgment or a final order
pending appeal – On motion
of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial
court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original
record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order
execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period
to appeal.
After the
trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may
be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary
execution may be granted by the court while it has jurisdiction over the case
and is still in possession of the original records thereof. At the time the RTC
issued the questioned orders, that court still had jurisdiction over the main case since the
petitioners, at the time the challenged orders were issued, had not yet perfected their appeal from the October 31, 2001 decision
of the same court. Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal only on
Moreover,
when those orders were
issued, the records of the case were still in the possession or custody of the
trial court. Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - A party's appeal by notice of appeal is
deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter
thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time
and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the
records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of
the other parties.
In either case, prior
to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court
may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the
parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending
appeal in accordance with Section 9 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the
appeal. [Emphasis supplied.]
Clearly,
prior to the transmittal of the records to the appellate court, the trial
court may issue orders for the protection and preservation
of the rights of the parties, among which is to order execution pending appeal.
Hence, the RTC acted within its discretion in issuing the order of execution
pending appeal and in denying the petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration thereof. As
stated earlier, the trial court issued its order of execution pending appeal on
To stress, the only issue validly raised in this petition relates to
the order of execution
pending appeal. With the reality that the petitioners’ appeal
from the main of the trial court was dismissed by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 7641 and a corresponding entry of judgment already made thereon, the petitioners’ challenge against the trial court’s order of
execution pending appeal is now purely academic. We are thus inclined to believe that the petitioners resorted to this recourse in a bid to revive their
lost appeal, which must have explained why they
injected in this petition arguments relative to the merits of the trial court’s
decision of
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed CA decision
is AFFIRMED.
With treble costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I attest
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice