G.R. No. 142676 , June 6, 2011 and G.R. No. 146718, June 6, 2011
EMERITA MUÑOZ, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. and SAMUEL GO CHAN, Respondents. ( G.R. No. 142676 ) / EMERITA MUÑOZ, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES SAMUEL GO CHAN and AIDA C. CHAN, and THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondents. (G.R. No. 146718)

FACTS

The subject property is a house and lot in Quezon City. Emerita Muñoz acquired title (TCT No. 186306) to it on December 22, 1972, from her brother-in-law, Yee L. Ching. On December 28, 1972, a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Muñoz sold the property to her sister, Emilia M. Ching, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 186366. Emilia M. Ching later sold the property to spouses Go Song and Tan Sio Kien (spouses Go) on July 16, 1979, resulting in TCT No. 258977.
On October 15, 1979, Muñoz registered an adverse claim on TCT No. 258977. The next day, she filed a complaint (Civil Case No. Q-28580) before the RTC, Branch 95, for annulment of the two deeds of sale, cancellation of TCT No. 258977, and restoration of her TCT No. 186306. She also annotated a notice of lis pendens. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, implemented on March 26, 1980, which ejected Muñoz from the property.
Meanwhile, the spouses Go mortgaged the property to BPI Family Savings Bank on November 23, 1982. After default, the mortgage was foreclosed, and BPI Family acquired the property, eventually obtaining TCT No. 370364. BPI Family sold the property to spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses Chan) on December 3, 1990, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 53297 in their names on January 28, 1991. The spouses Chan later mortgaged it to BPI Family.
On July 19, 1991, RTC-Branch 95 decided Civil Case No. Q-28580 in favor of Muñoz, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972 (Muñoz to Emilia Ching) and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 1979 (Emilia Ching to spouses Go) null and void ab initio, finding Muñoz’s signature on the first deed forged, and ordering the restoration of Muñoz’s TCT No. 186306. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on March 4, 1993, and also ordered the spouses Go and their successors-in-interest to vacate the property. This decision became final and executory.
To execute the judgment, Muñoz filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297 against the spouses Chan and BPI. RTC-Branch 95 denied this motion in Orders dated August 21, 1995, and October 3, 1995, ruling that the spouses Chan and BPI were not parties to Civil Case No. Q-28580 and were purchasers in good faith. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019.
Separately, after the finality of the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580, Muñoz filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 8286) before the MeTC, Branch 33, against Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr. and Samuel Go Chan, seeking to recover possession. The MeTC granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction restoring possession to Muñoz. However, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari before RTC-Branch 88, which dismissed the forcible entry case and nullified the MeTC’s injunction order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this in CA-G.R. SP No. 35322.

ISSUE

The core issue, common to both petitions, is whether the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580, which declared null and void the titles derived from the forged deed and ordered the restoration of Muñoz’s original title, can be enforced against subsequent transferees (the spouses Chan and BPI) who were not parties to that case, and whether Muñoz can recover possession through a separate forcible entry action.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied both petitions and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals decisions.
1. On G.R. No. 146718 (Enforcement against Spouses Chan and BPI): The Court ruled that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 is binding only on the parties thereto and their privies (Emilia M. Ching, Yee L. Ching, and the spouses Go). The spouses Chan and BPI were not parties to that case. They are considered third parties or strangers to the litigation. A judgment cannot bind persons who were not parties to the action, as it would violate their right to due process. The proper remedy for Muñoz is to file a separate action to nullify the titles of the spouses Chan and BPI, not to enforce the judgment against them via a mere motion for execution.
2. On G.R. No. 142676 (Forcible Entry Case): The Court ruled that the MeTC had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the forcible entry case. The judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580, which ordered the spouses Go and their successors-in-interest to vacate, had already become final. The enforcement of that judgment is a matter of execution, which falls under the jurisdiction of the court that rendered it (RTC-Branch 95), not the MeTC. The MeTC’s order granting the writ constituted an interference with the judgment and processes of a co-equal court (RTC-Branch 95). Furthermore, the RTC-Branch 88 correctly dismissed the forcible entry case because the issue of possession was already conclusively settled in Civil Case No. Q-28580; a forcible entry suit, which is summary in nature, cannot be used to re-litigate or execute a judgment from another case.
The Court emphasized that while the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 declared the root titles void, Muñoz must still pursue the proper legal avenues to recover the property from the current registered owners, the spouses Chan and BPI, who claim to be purchasers in good faith. The consolidated petitions sought shortcuts that were not legally permissible.