Professional Documents
Culture Documents
512,JANUARY23,2007 269
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation
*
G.R.No.154739.January23,2007.
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.:
_______________
1Rollo,pp.3748.PerAssociateJusticeConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.,andconcurredin
July12,1976.
271
VOL.512,JANUARY23,2007 271
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation
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
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.
_______________
274
274 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Panotesvs.CityTownhouseDevelopmentCorporation
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:
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.