G.R. No. 185620 ; December 14, 2011
RUBEN C. REYES, Petitioner, vs. TANG SOAT ING (JOANNA TANG) and ANDO G. SY, Respondents.

FACTS

The controversy originated from a complaint for Enforcement of Easement and Damages filed by MFR Farms, Inc. (MFR) against respondents Tang Soat Ing and Ando G. Sy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of MFR, ordering respondents to desist from industrial/commercial activities on their property (covered by TCT No. T-198753) and to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications. Both parties’ appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed for late payment and filing, making the CA decision final and executory on December 1, 1997.
Upon MFR’s motion, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution on September 28, 1998. The sheriff levied the subject property, published notices of sale, and conducted a public auction on July 19, 1999, where MFR was declared the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was issued and registered. After more than five years, with respondents failing to redeem, MFR filed a motion (and later a petition under the same docket number, Civil Case No. 1245-M) seeking an order to cancel respondents’ title and issue a new one in MFR’s name. The RTC granted the petition in an Order dated January 10, 2006, directing respondents to surrender their owner’s duplicate certificate of title and ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the old title and issue a new one in the name of Ruben C. Reyes, who had substituted MFR as party-petitioner.
Respondents filed an Opposition and Motion to declare the sale void, arguing they were not notified of the petition for issuance of a new title. The RTC denied their motions. The Court of Appeals annulled the RTC’s orders, holding that the proceeding for the issuance of a new certificate of title was a separate action requiring service of summons, not merely notice to counsel of record from the original case. Petitioner Ruben C. Reyes filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the RTC’s orders, specifically in ruling that the proceeding for the issuance of a new certificate of title after an execution sale was a separate action requiring service of summons on the respondents, rather than being a mere continuation of the original case where notice to counsel of record sufficed.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the Orders of the RTC.
The Court held that the proceeding for the issuance of a new certificate of title after an execution sale is not an independent action but a mere continuation of the original case (Civil Case No. 1245-M) and a subsequent stage in the execution process. Since the judgment in the main case had long become final and executory, the execution court retained jurisdiction to enforce it and order all necessary ancillary writs and processes. The petition filed by MFR (and later pursued by petitioner Reyes) was correctly filed under the same docket number as the original case. Consequently, service of copies of the petition and related motions upon respondents’ counsel of record from the original case, Atty. T.J. Sumawang, constituted valid service. The respondents were not entitled to a new service of summons. The RTC therefore did not commit any error in proceeding with the case and granting the petition for the issuance of a new title in the name of the purchaser at the execution sale.