You are on page 1of 7

VOL.

512,JANUARY23,2007 269
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation
*
G.R.No.154739.January23,2007.

ROGELIO (ROGER) PANOTES (thru ARACELI BUMATAY, as


successorininterest), petitioner, vs. CITY TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,respondent.

JudgmentsRevival of Judgments Words and Phrases An action for


revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the
execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the
passageoffiveyearswithoutitbeingexecuteduponmotionoftheprevailing
party.An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural
means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which has become
dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon
motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to reopen any issue
affecting the merits of the judgment debtors case nor the propriety or
correctnessofthefirstjudgment.

WritsofExecutionExecutionofajudgmentcanbeissuedonlyagainst
apartytotheactionandnotagainstonewhodidnothavehisdayincourt.
Strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by the judgment rendered
byacourt.Itwillnotdivesttherightsofapartywhohasnotandneverbeen
apartytoalitigation.Executionofajudgmentcanbeissuedonlyagainsta
partytotheactionandnotagainstonewhodidnothavehisdayincourt.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
PacificoA.Agabinforpetitioner.
LeaRoyaleB.Bulaonforrespondent.
Sabio&PerezLawOfficeforrespondentCorporation.

_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

270

270 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation

SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:

For our resolution is the


1
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
2
January 29,
2002inCAG.R.SPNo.52621anditsResolution datedAugust5,
2002denyingthemotionforreconsideration.
This case stemmed from a complaint filed with the National
Housing Authority (NHA) in April 1979 by Rogelio (Roger)
Panotes, petitioner, then president of the Provident Village
Homeowners Association, Inc., against Provident Securities
Corporation (PROSECOR), ownerdeveloper of the Provident
VillageinMarikinaCity.Thecomplaint,docketedasNHACaseNo.
4175,allegesthatPROSECORviolatedSections19,20,21,38,and
3
39 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957. One of the violations
complained of was its failure to provide an open space in the said
subdivision.
During the proceedings before the NHA, an ocular inspection
showed that the subdivision has no open space. The NHA found,
however,thatBlock40,withanareaof22,916squaremeters,could
beutilizedasopenspace.Thus,initsResolutiondatedAugust14,
1980, the NHA directed PROSECOR to provide the Provident
VillageanopenspacewhichisBlock40.
Inaletterofthesamedate,thenNHAActingGeneralManager
AntonioA.FernandoorderedPROSECORtoprovideBlock40of
thesubdivisionasopenspace.
PROSECOR was served copies of the NHA Resolution and the
letteronAugust22,1980.

_______________

1Rollo,pp.3748.PerAssociateJusticeConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.,andconcurredin

by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Associate Justice Amelita G.


Tolentino.
2Id.,p.50.

3 The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree, promulgated on

July12,1976.

271

VOL.512,JANUARY23,2007 271
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation

Considering that PROSECOR did not appeal from the NHA


Resolution,itbecamefinalandexecutory.
When Panotes filed a motion for execution of the NHA
Resolution, it was found that the records of the case were
mysteriously missing. Hence, his motion was provisionally
dismissedwithoutprejudice.
Meanwhile, PROSECOR sold to City Townhouse Development
Corporation (CTDC), respondent, several lots in the subdivision.
Among the lots sold were those comprising Block 40. CTDC was
unaware of the NHA Resolution ordering PROSECOR to have
Block40utilizedasopenspaceofProvidentVillage.
Eventually, Panotes was succeeded by Araceli Bumatay as
presidentoftheProvidentVillageHomeownersAssociation,Inc.On
July17,1990,shefiledwiththeHousingandLandUseRegulatory
Board (HLURB) a complaint for revival of the NHA Resolution
datedAugust14,1980.ImpleadedthereinasdefendantwasCTDC,
whomsheallegedassuccessorininterestofPROSECOR.
In its answer, CTDC averred, among others, that (1) Araceli
Bumatay has no legal personality to file the action for revival of
judgment (2) there is a pending litigation between CTDC and
PROSECOR involving Block 40 and (3) other entities like the
Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas and Provident Savings Bank have
existingliensoverBlock40.
On October 15, 1991, the HLURB, through Housing and Land
Use ArbiterCharito M. Bunagan, rendered its Decision in favor of
Bumatay, reviving the NHA Resolution and declaring Block 40 of
theProvidentVillageasopenspaceforthesaidsubdivision,thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered


declaringBlock40(withanareaof22,916squaremeters)oftheSubdivision
Plan Pcs5683 of the Provident Villages located at Marikina, Metro Manila
as the legally mandated open space for said subdivision project and the
RegisterofDeedsforMarikinaisherebydirectedtocausetheannotationof
thisfactonthecorre

272

272 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation

spondingTorrensTitlewhichdescribesandcoverssaidopenspacesaidarea
to be reserved and utilized exclusively in the manner
4
and for the purposes
providedforunderP.D.N0.957andP.D.No.1216.
Furthermore, let a Cease and Desist Order be, as it is hereby, issued
against respondent Provident Securities Corp. and City Townhouse
Development Corporation, restraining said respondents, and all persons,
agents,orotherassociationsorcorporateentitiesactingontheirbehalf,from
asserting or perpetrating any or further acts of dominion or claim over said
Block40,Pcs5683,theopenspaceallocatedandreservedfortheProvident
VillagesinMarikina,MetroManila.
ITISSOORDERED.
On appeal to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, Arbiter
BunagansDecisionwasaffirmedwithmodificationinthesensethat
CTDChastherighttorecoverfromPROSECORwhatithaslost.
After its motion for reconsideration was denied, CTDC then
interposed an appeal to the Office of the President (OP). On
February 10, 1999, the OP rendered its Decision affirming in toto
thejudgmentoftheHLURBBoardofCommissioners.CTDCfiled
amotionforreconsideration,butitwasdeniedinaResolutiondated
April14,1999.
CTDCthenfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforreview
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended,
docketedthereinasCAG.R.SPNo.52621.
5
In a Resolution dated May 10, 1999, the Court of Appeals
dismissed CTDCs petition for its failure to attach thereto a
certification against forum shopping. The Court of Appeals also
foundthatthepetitionwasnotsupportedbycertified

_______________

4TheDecreeisentitledDefiningOpenSpaceinResidentialSubdivisionsand

AmendingSection31ofPresidentialDecreeNo.957RequiringSubdivisionOwners
To Provide Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks, and Reserve Open Space For Parks or
RecreationalUse.
5Rollo,pp.145146.

273

VOL.512,JANUARY23,2007 273
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation

true copies of such material portions of the records and other


pertinentpapersreferredtointhepetition.
CTDCfiledamotionforreconsiderationwhichwasopposedby
Bumatay.
On June 10, 1999, CTDC submitted to the Court of Appeals a
certification of nonforum shopping as well as the pleadings
mentionedinitsResolution.
On July 27, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution
granting CTDCs motion for reconsideration and reinstated its
petition.
On January 29, 2002, the appellate court rendered its Decision
reversing the Decision of the OP and dismissing the complaint for
revivalofjudgment,thus:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, finding merit in this petition for


review, the assailed Decision of the Office of the President dated February
10, 1999, together with its Resolution dated February 14, 1999 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered dismissing HLRB
CaseNo.REM0717904052(NHACaseNo.4175HLRBCaseNo.REM
A1089).Costsagainsttherespondent.
SOORDERED.

The basic issue for our resolution is whether the NHA Resolution
datedAugust14,1980maybeenforcedagainstCTDC.
An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural
meansofsecuringtheexecutionofapreviousjudgmentwhichhas
become dormant after the passage of five years without it being
executeduponmotionoftheprevailingparty.Itisnotintendedtore
openanyissueaffectingthemeritsofthejudgmentdebtorscasenor
6
theproprietyorcorrectnessofthefirstjudgment.

_______________

6 Azotea v. Blanco, 85 Phil. 90 (1949) Filipinas Investment and Finance


Corporationv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.Nos.6605960,December4,1989,
179SCRA729.

274

274 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation

Here, the original judgment or the NHA Resolution sought to be


revived was between Rogelio Panotes and PROSECOR, not
betweenpetitionerAraceliBumatayandrespondentCTDC.
In maintaining that CTDC is bound by the NHA Resolution,
petitioner claims that CTDC is the successorininterest of
PROSECORand,therefore,assumedtheobligationsofthelatterto
provideanopenspaceforProvidentVillage.
CTDCpurchasedfromPROSECORBlock40inthesaidvillage,
not as an ownerdeveloper like PROSECOR, but as an ordinary
buyeroflots.Evenafterthesale,CTDCdidnotbecomeanowner
developer. The Deed of Sale executed by CTDC, as buyer, and
PROSECOR, as seller, shows that the subject matter of the sale is
the unsold lots comprising Block 40 within the subdivision to
CTDC. The contract does not include the transfer of rights of
PROSECOR as ownerdeveloper of the said subdivision. Clearly,
thereisnobasistoconcludethatCTDCisthesuccessorininterest
ofPROSECOR.
ItbearsstressingthatwhenCTDCboughtBlock40,therewasno
annotation on PROSECORs title showing that the property is
encumbered. In fact, the NHA Resolution was not annotated
thereon. CTDC is thus a buyer in good faith and for value, and as
such,maynotbedeprivedoftheownershipofBlock40.Verily,the
NHAResolutionmaynotbeenforcedagainstCTDC.
Section2ofP.D.No.1216provides:
Section 2.Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 is hereby amended to
readasfollows:

Section31.Roads,Alleys,SidewalksandOpenSpaces.Theownerordeveloperof
a subdivision shall provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks. For subdivision
projectsofone(1)hectareormore,theownershallreservethirtypercent(30%)ofthe
grossareaforopenspace.
xxxxxxxxx.

275

VOL.512,JANUARY23,2007 275
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation

Clearly,providinganopenspacewithinthesubdivisionremainsto
be the obligation of PROSECOR, the ownerdeveloper and the real
partyininterestinthecaseforrevivalofjudgment.Asaptlyheldby
theCourtofAppeals:

Quintessentially, the real partyininterest in the revival of NHA Case No.


4175 is PROSECOR and not CTDC. PROSECOR was the lone defendant
or respondent in that case against whom judgment was rendered. To insist
thatCTDCisasuccessorininterestofPROSECORmayhavesometruthif
wearetalkingabouttheownershipofthelotssoldbyPROSECORinfavor
of CTDC as a result of a civil action between the two. But then, to hold
CTDC as the successorininterest of PROSECOR as the developer of the
subdivision,isfarfromrealty.CTDCissimplyonthesamefootingasany
lotbuyermemberofPVHIA.xxx.

Furthermore, strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by the


judgmentrenderedbyacourt.Itwillnotdivesttherightsofaparty
who has not and never been a party to a litigation. Execution of a
judgment can be issued only against a party7 to the action and not
againstonewhodidnothavehisdayincourt.
WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetitionandAFFIRMtheassailed
DecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.
52621.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.

Puno(C.J.,Chairperson),Corona,AzcunaandGarcia,JJ.,
concur.

Petitiondenied,assaileddecisionandresolutionaffirmed.

_______________

7St.DominicCorporationv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,No.L70623,June30,

1987,151SCRA577SalamatVda.deMedinav.Cruz,No.L39272,May4,1988,161
SCRA36Buazonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R. No. 97749, March 19, 1993, 220SCRA
182MatuguinaIntegratedWoodProducts,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.98310,
October24,1996,263SCRA490.

276

276 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
QueenslandTokyoCommodities,Inc.vs.Matsuda

Notes.Absentanyfindingofdelaycausedbythejudgmentdebtor
intheexecutionofthejudgment,acomplaintforrevival/execution
ofjudgmentfiledthirteen(13)yearsafterthedecisionbecamefinal
and executory has long prescribed. (SantanaCruz vs. Court of
Appeals,361SCRA520[2001])
The tenyear period within which an action for revival of a
judgment should be brought, commences to run from the date of
finalityofthejudgment,andnotfromtheexpirationofthefiveyear
periodwithinwhichthejudgmentmaybeenforcedbymeremotion.
(Maciasvs.Lim,431SCRA20[2004])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

You might also like