G.R. Nos. 182136-37; August 29, 2008
Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation, petitioner, vs. Spouses Nicanor and Esther de Guzman, Evelyn Uy and the Estate of Jayme Uy, Hon. Lorna Catris F. Chua-Cheng, Presiding Judge, Branch 168 of RTC-Marikina City, (formerly Pasig City), Hon. Amelia A. Fabros, Branch 160 of RTC-San Juan, (formerly Pasig City), and The Registrar of Deeds of San Juan, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses De Guzman owned two lots. They executed a deed of absolute sale over the lots to spouses Siochi as security for a loan, which the courts later declared an equitable mortgage. The Siochis nevertheless sold the lots to spouses Uy. The De Guzmans filed an action for annulment of titles and reconveyance. The trial court ruled in their favor, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 109197, which became final in 2001. Meanwhile, after a related case (G.R. No. 109217) became final in 1994, the Uys’ titles were cancelled and titles were reissued to the De Guzmans. The De Guzmans then sold the lots to spouses Garcia, who subsequently sold them to petitioner Bon-Mar Realty. Bon-Mar’s titles were later allegedly forged to transfer the lots back to the Uys, prompting Bon-Mar to file a separate case to nullify that transfer.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Bon-Mar Realty has a legal interest to intervene in the De Guzmans’ action for annulment and reconveyance (Civil Case No. 56393) to oppose the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the De Guzmans.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied Bon-Mar’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Bon-Mar has no legal interest to intervene. The core ruling in G.R. No. 109197 declared the De Guzmans as the rightful owners entitled to reconveyance from the Uys, who were not buyers in good faith. This judgment is final and constitutes res judicata. Bon-Mar’s claim of ownership, derived from a subsequent purchase from the Garcias (who bought from the De Guzmans), is irrelevant to the execution of that final judgment. The execution sought by the De Guzmans is merely to enforce the court’s directive for the Uys to reconvey the property, which is a logical consequence of the annulment of the Uys’ titles. Bon-Mar’s remedy, if any, lies not against the De Guzmans’ enforcement of a final judgment but in a separate action to assert its claim of ownership against the proper parties. Allowing intervention would unjustly delay and subvert the execution of a long-final decision. The Court also upheld the De Guzmans’ right to intervene in the indirect contempt case filed by Bon-Mar against the Register of Deeds, as they are directly affected parties whose titles were the subject of the controversy.