G.R. No. 123698 August 5, 1998
ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. LILIA SEVILLA and JOSE SEELIN, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of TCT No. 205942 filed by spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin against Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation before the RTC of Caloocan City (Civil Case No. C-9297). On August 24, 1989, the RTC declared the defendant’s title null and void. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and later upheld by the Supreme Court, becoming final on March 5, 1992. After the decision became final, private respondents moved for execution. Petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation, which bought the property from Central Dyeing, opposed the motion, claiming it was a buyer in good faith and not a party to the case. The RTC granted execution and issued orders holding that the judgment was binding on petitioner as successor-in-interest. Petitioner challenged these orders via certiorari in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 28797), which was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 109076) was denied, with an Entry of Judgment dated October 21, 1993. Private respondents later secured a second writ of execution. Petitioner again filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 36591), raising issues including its non-party status, the lack of a mandate to deliver possession, alleged intervening circumstances, violation of lot buyers’ religious freedom, and a pending case questioning private respondents’ title. The CA dismissed this petition, noting the judgment was long final and the property had already been turned over to private respondents. Petitioner now seeks Supreme Court review.

ISSUE

Whether the execution of the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. C-9297 against petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation, as successor-in-interest of the original defendant, is proper.

RULING

The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court upheld the execution. The Court ruled that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the judgment against the transferor under Section 20, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, and petitioner, having bought the property from the defendant Central Dyeing, is bound by the decision annulling the title. The Court found no merit in petitioner’s arguments: (1) The issue of petitioner being bound by the judgment had already been resolved with finality in the prior CA and Supreme Court proceedings. (2) Placing private respondents in possession is a necessary consequence of the declaration of their ownership, and no separate action is needed. (3) The pendency of another case (Civil Case No. C-11337) for annulment of titles filed by the Republic against private respondents does not justify suspending execution, as the judgment annulling petitioner’s predecessor’s title is final and cannot be validated by a possible adverse decision in the other case. (4) Concerns about disturbance of burial lots were addressed by the trial court’s protective measures. The Court concluded the petition was a dilatory tactic to prevent the prevailing party from benefiting from a final judgment.