G.R. No. 194995 . November 18, 2021
EMILIO D. MONTILLA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. G HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On April 12, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City, Branch 61, rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 142 (96-5488) in favor of petitioner Emilio D. Montilla, Jr. The decision, which attained finality, ordered, among others, San Remigio Mines Inc., Real Copper, and Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC) to render an accounting, deliver percentages of received payments, return mining rights, and pay damages and attorney’s fees to Montilla. Upon motion, the RTC issued a writ of execution. A Sheriff’s Report dated April 30, 2003, stated that MMIC had no more properties in Sipalay City as they had been acquired by respondent “G” Holdings, Inc. (GHI) from Maricalum Mining Corporation via a foreclosure sale in December 2001. Montilla then moved for an amended writ of execution to direct the sheriff to take properties belonging to San Remigio Mines Inc. and its assigns/successors, including GHI, to satisfy the judgment. The RTC denied this motion in an Amended Order dated July 9, 2004, ruling that GHI was not a party to the case, derived its rights through a foreclosure sale from a different entity (Maricalum, not directly from MMIC), and enforcing the judgment against it would violate due process and substantially alter the final decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order, dismissing Montilla’s petition for certiorari. The CA held that GHI was a separate entity from MMIC, was not a privy to the case, and the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure sale, as well as the separate corporate personalities, had been settled in a prior Supreme Court case (“G” Holdings Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of Montilla’s motion for an amended writ of execution to enforce the final judgment against GHI, a non-party transferee of the judgment debtor’s properties.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that a writ of execution must conform to the judgment decree and can only be issued against a party to the action or a successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action who is bound by the judgment under the doctrine of “pendente lite.” GHI was not a party to the case. Furthermore, GHI was not a successor-in-interest of the judgment debtor, MMIC, as it acquired the properties from Maricalum Mining Corporation, which had itself acquired them from MMIC through a prior foreclosure. GHI was therefore a stranger to the case. Enforcing the judgment against GHI would violate its right to due process. The Court also upheld the separate corporate personality of GHI from MMIC, noting that the issue of the validity of the foreclosure and the distinct identities had already been ruled upon with finality in a previous case. The RTC correctly refused to issue the amended writ, as it would have substantially altered the final judgment by enforcing it against a non-party, which is beyond the court’s jurisdiction in execution proceedings.