G.R. No. 167835 and G.R. No. 188480; November 15, 2010
SPOUSES ALFREDO and ENCARNACION CHING, Petitioners, vs. FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, and SHERIFF OF MANILA, Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

Alfredo Ching acted as a surety for a loan obtained by Cheng Ban Yek and Co., Inc. from Family Savings Bank. The Bank filed a collection case, and a summary judgment was rendered against the corporation and Alfredo. Execution pending appeal was granted, leading to the levy and auction sale in 1983 of a conjugal property of the Spouses Ching, with the Bank as the highest bidder. The judgment became final and executory after the Supreme Court dismissed Alfredo’s petition. Over two decades later, in 2004, the Bank filed a motion in the trial court for the issuance of a final deed of conveyance, transfer of title, and a writ of possession over the property.
The Spouses Ching opposed, arguing the levy was void as it involved a conjugal property for a personal debt of the husband-surety. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the Bank’s motion, ruling the validity of the execution was already settled with finality. The Court of Appeals dismissed the spouses’ subsequent petitions for certiorari. In a separate but related petition (G.R. No. 188480), Alfredo challenged the denial of his motion to quash the writ of possession, which the CA also dismissed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Bank is entitled to a writ of possession and the transfer of title over the conjugal property sold at auction to satisfy the personal obligation of the husband, and whether the long delay in seeking these remedies bars the Bank’s claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Bank’s entitlement to the remedies. The Court’s legal logic rests on the principles of finality of judgment and conclusiveness of a prior ruling. The validity of the execution and the auction sale, including the specific issue of whether the conjugal property could be levied for Alfredo’s surety obligation, was conclusively settled when the Supreme Court’s 2003 Decision in G.R. No. 118830 became final and executory. That prior ruling constitutes the law of the case between the parties, binding and immutable. The Spouses Ching cannot re-litigate this settled matter through a collateral attack in a subsequent proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Bank’s motion was not a new execution but a mere continuation of the completed 1983 execution sale, seeking only the final consequences of that sale. The right to a writ of possession, as the purchaser in a valid execution sale, is ministerial once the redemption period expires. The Bank’s delay in asserting this right, while not commendable, did not extinguish its ownership rights acquired at the auction, as the title had already passed upon the expiration of the redemption period in 1984. The remedies sought were merely to perfect that title. Thus, the trial court correctly granted the Bank’s motion.