Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/54921
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:04:41+00:00

Document:
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE R. EVANGELISTA, RESPONDENT.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse and set aside the following resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546: (a) Resolution dated 17 July 2007, which granted respondent Jose Evangelista’s (respondent) Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution of the Decision dated 11 August 1999 of the Court of Appeals; and (b) Resolution dated 12 November 2007 denying National Housing Authority’s (petitioner) Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 17 July 2007.
The Writ of Execution subject of the assailed Resolution directs the Quezon City Register of Deeds to: (a) annotate on respondent’s TCT No. 122944 the dispositive part of the 11 August 1999 Decision declaring the third paragraph of the dispositive portion of the decision dated 29 November 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City void, non-binding and inapplicable insofar as TCT No. 122944 is concerned; and (b) cancel Entry No. 7159, an Affidavit of Adverse Claim executed by petitioner, which was annotated thereon.
This case involves a 915-square meter parcel of land situated at V. Luna Road, Quezon City originally registered in the name of People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC), the predecessor of petitioner .
Arsenio S. Florendo, Jr., etc.
Thus, in 1968, Adela Salindon (Salindon) acquired the property from PHHC and was issued TCT No. 138007. However, in a Decision dated 20 May 1975 of the City Court of Quezon City, the sale was declared null and void. During the pendency of the appeal, Salindon died and her heirs settled her estate, including the subject lot. This resulted in the cancellation of TCT No. 138007 and the issuance of a new title, TCT No. 239729, in favor of its new owners, namely, Arsenio S. Florendo, Jr., Milagros Florendo, Beatriz Florendo and Eloisa Florendo-Kulphongpatana. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in its Decision dated 19 May 1984 in G.R. No. L-60544 entitled Arsenio Florendo, Jr. et al. v. Hon. Perpetua D. Coloma, Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, City Court of Quezon City, et. al., nullified and set aside the award in favor of Salindon and declared petitioner owner of the property.
The issue of ownership then arose when, notwithstanding the promulgation of the 19 May 1984 decision of the Supreme Court awarding the property to petitioner NHA, the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office sold the land at a public auction due to the Florendos’ years of non-payment of realty taxes. Consequently, TCT No. 28182 was issued in favor of Luisito Sarte (Sarte), the highest bidder at the auction. Sarte had the property divided into two (2) parts, Lot 1-A and Lot 1-B, for which he was issued new titles, to wit, TCT Nos. 108070 and 108071, respectively. This prompted petitioner to file an action for recovery of real property against Sarte, the City Treasurer of Quezon City and the Quezon City Register of Deeds (QCRD) before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in 1991. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-10071.
During the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, however, Sarte was able to transfer ownership of Lot 1-A covered by TCT No. 108070 to respondent because there was no notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of the title. TCT No. 108070 was thus correspondingly cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 122944, issued in the name of respondent. Significantly, it was only on TCT No. 122944 that the Affidavit of Adverse Claim (Entry No. 7159/T-No. 122944) and the Notice of Lis Pendens (Entry No. 1367/T-No. 122944) were annotated. Incidentally, the complaint for Annulment of Deed of Assignment, Deed of Absolute Sale, Real Estate Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT Nos. 122944 and 126639 and Damages docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-23940 subject of Entry No. 1367 was dismissed on 23 October 1995 in view of the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-91-10071.
Aggrieved, Sarte, the City Treasurer of Quezon City, and the QCRD appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The case entitled NHA v. Sarte, the City Treasurer of Quezon City, et al. was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52466.
On the other hand, respondent filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for the annulment of paragraph 3 of the dispositive portion of the judgment that nullified any transfer, assignment, sale or mortgage made by Sarte. His action was anchored on the ground that he, who acquired the property from Sarte, had been adversely affected by the aforequoted decision despite his non-participation in the litigation. The case entitled Evangelista v. The Honorable Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch CIII, National Housing Authority was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41546.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The assailed part or paragraph No. 3 of the dispositive portion of the decision dated November 29, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Br. CIII, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 is hereby declared void, non-binding and inapplicable in so far as petitioner’s [Evangelista’s] TCT No. 122944 is concerned.
Let a copy hereof be furnished the Register of Deeds of Quezon City for the proper annotation. No pronouncement as to costs.
After its motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals, petitioner elevated the case to this Court. The petition entitled National Housing Authority v. Jose Evangelista was docketed as G.R. No. 140945.
In this case, it is undisputed that respondent was never made a party to Civil Case No. Q-91-10071. It is basic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. Yet, the assailed paragraph 3 of the trial court’s decision decreed that “(A)ny transfers, assignment, sale or mortgage of whatever nature of the parcel of land subject of this case made by defendant Luisito Sarte or his/her agents or assigns before or during the pendency of the instant case are hereby declared null and void, together with any transfer certificates of title issued in connection with the aforesaid transactions by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City who is likewise ordered to cancel or cause the cancellation of such TCTs.” Respondent is adversely affected by such judgment, as he was the subsequent purchaser of the subject property from Sarte, and title was already transferred to him. It will be the height of inequity to allow respondent’s title to be nullified without being given the opportunity to present any evidence in support of his ostensible ownership of the property. Much more, it is tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Clearly, the trial court’s judgment is void insofar as paragraph 3 of its dispositive portion is concerned.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.  are hereby AFFIRMED.
As could be gleaned from the facts of the case, the City Treasurer of Quezon City was already informed twice of the Supreme Court decision declaring NHA as the owner of the disputed lot x x x.
It is a truism that a purchaser of property can acquire no more than what the seller can legally transfer because the latter can only sell what he owns or is authorized to sell.
A purchaser of property cannot close his eyes and claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the vendor’s title. A person buying can acquire no more than what the seller can legally transfer, because the latter can only sell what he owns or is authorized to sell.
Applying the foregoing doctrine, the City Treasurer of Quezon [City] can only legally transfer to the buyer Sarte such right he is authorized to sell. And appellant Sarte cannot simply close his eyes by claiming that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the authority of the City Treasurer to sell.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of RTC Branch CIII of Quezon City is hereby AFFIRMED in its entirety.
The decision became final and executory on 15 August 2005.
Meanwhile, on 12 July 2006, respondent sought the issuance of a writ of execution of the Court of Appeals’ 11 August 1999 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 entitled Evangelista v. The Honorable Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch CIII, National Housing Authority, which this Court affirmed in the 16 May 2005 Decision in G.R. No. 140945, and which became final and executory on 1 July 2005.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion is GRANTED. Let a writ of execution issue DIRECTING the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to annotate the dispositive part of the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 11, 1999 in the title of petitioner and to cancel Entry No. 7159 annotated on petitioner’s TCT No. 122944.
It also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner.
The core issue in this case is whether or not the 21 July 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 entitled National Housing Authority v. Luisito Sarte, the City Treasurer of the Quezon City, and the Quezon City Register of Deeds, which affirmed the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 in its entirety thereby awarding the entire parcel of land in favor of petitioner, effectively overturned the Court of Appeals’ 11 August 1999 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 entitled Evangelista v. The Honorable Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch CIII, National Housing Authority specifically nullifying paragraph 3 of the dispositive portion of the same decision of the trial court (i.e., that any transfer, assignment, sale or mortgage made by Sarte is a nullity) insofar as respondent’s TCT No. 122944 is concerned.
Corrolarily, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondent’s motion for the issuance of writ of execution of the Court of Appeals’ 11 August 1999 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 entitled Evangelista v. The Honorable Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch CIII, National Housing Authority.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that the Court of Appeals reviewed the same trial court’s decision dated 29 November 1995 in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 declaring: (1) in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 (petition for annulment of paragraph 3 of the judgment filed by respondent, who was not impleaded in the case before the trial court) – that paragraph 3 of the said judgment of the trial court, which nullified any transfer, assignment, sale or mortgage made by Sarte, is not binding nor applicable insofar as respondent’s TCT No. 122944 is concerned; and (2) in CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 (an ordinary appeal filed by Sarte who was the defendant in the case before the court a quo) – that the entire parcel of land belongs to petitioner.
Nonetheless, we see no conflict between the two (2) decisions.
A person who was not impleaded in the complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by a proceeding in which he is a stranger.
The case docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 referred to in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 has now been terminated with the Court of Appeals, in its 21 July 2005 Decision, affirming the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 in its entirety thereby awarding the entire parcel of land in favor of petitioner.
The fact remains, however, that since CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 is a mere appeal from the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, and that respondent had not been impleaded in that case, such ruling is not binding insofar as respondent’s TCT No. 122944 is concerned.
Moreover, referring to the last three lines of the aforequoted paragraph, petitioner’s argument that the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the trial court’s 29 November 1995 decision particularly awarding the entire property in its favor clearly has no leg to stand on. This Court has categorically ruled that any portion of the judgment adverse to the rights of respondent shall not be binding upon him.
Finally, petitioner pointed out that the trial court has already denied respondent’s motion for cancellation of Entry No. 7159/T-No. 122944 annotated at the back of TCT No. 122944. Such contention is likewise without merit.
The movant as well as this court were not impleaded as a party in the above-captioned case. In fact, the court is not aware of the alleged decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying the judgment of this court as stated by Mr. Jose Evangelista.
And, it was precisely by virtue of this Order that respondent sought relief from the proper forum.
All considered, we find that the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error when it resolved to: (a) grant respondent’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution of the Decision dated 11 August 1999; and (b) cause the cancellation of Entry No. 7159 annotated on respondent’s TCT No. 122944.
Suffice it to state, by way of reiteration, that this Court is not declaring that respondent has purchased the property in good faith, only that he was not given his day in court to establish his right over the property. The issue of whether or not he was a purchaser in good faith is, therefore, a matter that must be resolved in an appropriate case and in the proper forum.
 CA rollo, pp. 206-211. Penned by then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now retired Supreme Court Associate Justice), with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring.
 Id. at 141-152. Penned by then Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now retired Supreme Court Associate Justice), with Associate Justices Jainal D. Rasul and Eloy R. Bello, Jr., concurring.
 Id. at 230-231. Penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring.
 “WHEREFORE the petition is granted. The assailed part or paragraph No. 3 of the dispositive portion of the decision dated November 29, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Br. CIII, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 is hereby declared void, non-binding and inapplicable in so far as petitioner’s TCT No. 122944 is concerned.
Executed under oath by Manuel V. Fernandez (in behalf of NHA), adverse claimant, claiming among others that NHA has the right of the ownership of the property being the subject of controversy in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, entitled ‘National Housing Authority vs. Luisito Sarte, et al.,’ now pending before RTC, Br. 103, Q.C. Doc. No. 76, page 16, Bk. I, s. of 1995 of Not. Pub. of Q.C. Belsie Cailipan Sy.
Id. at 37. TCT No. 122944.
By virtue of a notice of lis pendens presented and filed by Oscar I. Garcia & Virgilio C. Abejo, notice is hereby given that a case has been pending RTC, Q.C. in Civil Case No. Q-95-23940 entitled ‘National Housing Authority, plaintiff, -vs.- Luisito Sarte, Jose Evangelista, Northern Star Agri-Business Corporation, BPI Agricultural Development Bank & the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, defendants,’ plaintiff praying for Annulment of the Deed of Assignment, Deed of Absolute Sae, Real Estate Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT Nos. 122944 and 126639 & damages.
 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, 497 Phil. 762, 774 (2005).
 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, supra note 8 at 770 citing Heirs of Antonio Pael v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 222, 249.
 Id. at 771 citing Article III, Section 1, 198 Constitution.
 Rollo, pp. 150-153. Court of Appeals Decision dated 21 July 2005. Penned by Associated Justice Lucenito N. Tagle with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of the Court) and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring.
 Id. at 230-231. Resolution of 12 November 2007.
 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, supra note 8 at 764 citing Heirs of Antonio Pael v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 222, 249 (2000); Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250, 270.
 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, supra note 8 at 771.
 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, supra note 8 at 481.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.