G.R. No. 160280 March 13, 2009
SOFIA ANIOSA SALANDANAN, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MA. ISABEL and BAYANI MENDEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Bayani and Ma. Isabel Mendez filed a complaint for ejectment against Spouses Delfin and Carmen Fernandez before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Respondents alleged they are the registered owners of a house and lot in Manila by virtue of a deed of donation from Spouses Pablo and Sofia Salandanan. They claimed the Spouses Fernandez were occupying the property for free through the generosity of respondent Isabel’s father and had refused to vacate despite demand.
In their Answer, Spouses Fernandez claimed that Spouses Salandanan are the true registered owners, that respondent Isabel is not their daughter, and that Delfin Fernandez, as a nephew of Pablo Salandanan, occupied the property with permission. They alleged the deed of donation was obtained through fraud and was simulated, and that a separate case for annulment, revocation, and reconveyance of title (Civil Case No. 01101487) was pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The MeTC ruled in favor of respondents, ordering Spouses Fernandez to vacate and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. The RTC affirmed this decision on appeal. The RTC also granted respondents’ motion for execution pending appeal after Spouses Fernandez failed to deposit monthly rentals. During the execution, the sheriff found petitioner Sofia Aniosa Salandanan (the alleged true owner) inside the padlocked house.
Spouses Fernandez filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC decision, ordering Spouses Fernandez “and all persons claiming rights under them, including Sofia Aniosa Salandanan,” to vacate. Spouses Fernandez filed a motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, petitioner Sofia Salandanan filed a Motion for Clarification and Intervention with attached Motion for Reconsideration, alleging she was the real owner, was not a party to the ejectment case, and was about to be evicted without due process. She noted the pending separate case for annulment of title. The CA denied both motions, stating the intervention was belated (filed after the CA’s judgment) and her rights were protected in the separate proceeding. Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in including petitioner Sofia Salandanan in its judgment ordering vacatur despite her not being a party to the ejectment case and in denying her motion for clarification and intervention.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the inclusion of petitioner in the CA’s dispositive portion was proper. In ejectment cases, a judgment is enforceable not only against the defendants but also against other persons who derive their right of possession from them. The CA found that petitioner was a relative of Spouses Fernandez and was acting in their behalf, as she was brought to the property to prevent execution after the RTC ordered execution pending appeal. Therefore, she was bound by the judgment as a person claiming rights under the defendants.
The Court also ruled that the CA correctly denied the motion for intervention. Under Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. Petitioner filed her motion after the CA had already rendered its decision, making it belated. Furthermore, her rights as alleged owner were already being litigated in a separate action for annulment of title and reconveyance, which is the proper proceeding to determine ownership. The ejectment case, being a summary action, was concerned only with the issue of possession de facto based on the respondents’ Torrens title.