G.R. No. 141463 ; August 6, 2002
VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY and HIS/HER DEPUTIES and PURA KALAW LEDESMA, substituted by TANDANG SORA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Pura Kalaw Ledesma, later substituted by Tandang Sora Development Corporation (TSDC), was the registered owner of Lot 689 in Quezon City. Adjacent lots, 707-A and 707-B, were registered under Herminigilda Pedro, who sold them to Mariano Lising. Lising subdivided and sold portions, including a lot (Lot 5, Block 1) purchased by petitioners Victor and Honorata Orquiola, who built a house thereon. In 1969, Ledesma filed a complaint (Civil Case No. Q-12918) against Pedro and Lising for encroaching on Lot 689. After a decades-long trial, the RTC in 1991 found Pedro and Lising liable and ordered them to remove constructions on the plaintiff’s property. In 1998, an alias writ of execution and a Special Order directing demolition were issued against the defendants and “present occupants,” affecting petitioners. Petitioners, who were not impleaded in the original case, filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing enforcement against them would deprive them of property without due process. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling petitioners as successors-in-interest/buyers from Lising were privies bound by the judgment. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the alias writ of execution and order of demolition from Civil Case No. Q-12918 may be enforced against petitioners who were not parties to that case.
2. Whether petitioners were innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith.

RULING

1. No, the writ of execution and demolition order cannot be enforced against petitioners. The Supreme Court held that petitioners, not being parties or impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-12918, are strangers to that case. A writ of execution can only be issued against a party to the action. Since petitioners were not given their day in court, enforcing the judgment against them would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law. The Court distinguished the cited case of Vda. de Medina vs. Cruz, as in that case, the party against whom execution was sought acquired rights after the judgment became final, and her claim was based on a dubious Spanish title, unlike petitioners who are Torrens title holders.
2. Yes, petitioners are entitled to the protection accorded to innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith. They purchased the lot based on a duly registered Torrens title (TCT No. 16951) in the name of their predecessor, Herminigilda Pedro. Under the Torrens system, one who deals with registered property can rely solely on the certificate of title and is charged only with notices annotated thereon. There was no showing of any flaw in petitioners’ title or any bad faith on their part. As builders in good faith on land they believed to be their own, they possess rights over the property, making them real parties in interest. Since they were not impleaded in the encroachment case, the decision therein cannot bind them.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution, and enjoined respondents from enforcing the decision in Civil Case No. Q-12918 against petitioners through a writ of execution and order of demolition.