G.R. No. 47432; June 17, 1941
EUSTAQUIO FULE, petitioner, vs. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, and ENRIQUE BAUTISTA, respondents.

FACTS

On March 8, 1940, respondent Enrique Bautista filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. He alleged that in Civil Case No. 6708, he was finally adjudged the exclusive and absolute owner of a parcel of land. A writ of possession had been issued in his favor, and the provincial sheriff was ordered on multiple dates to deliver the land to him. However, petitioner Eustaquio Fule, who was in actual possession of the land, refused to surrender it. Bautista prayed that Fule be required to explain his refusal and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for disobeying the writ. In his answer, Fule denied any participation in Civil Case No. 6708 and stated he could not be bound by, and had no knowledge of, any writ of possession issued therein. He claimed he was in actual possession as absolute owner since January 13, 1936. On March 20, 1940, the court issued an order denying the prayer to hold Fule in contempt but ordering him to vacate the land “without prejudice to establishing his alleged right of ownership thereto in a proper action.” This order is the subject of the petition for certiorari.
The respondents admit that petitioner Eustaquio Fule was not made a party to the proceeding (Civil Case No. 6708) wherein Bautista was adjudged owner. The factual background, as stated by respondents, is: On June 10, 1930, Felipe Suarez sold the property to Gregorio Atienza with a right of repurchase within ten years. On December 12, 1930, Gregorio Atienza sold the same property to respondent Enrique Bautista, also with a right of repurchase. On June 21, 1932, Gregorio Atienza brought an action (Civil Case No. 5060) against Bautista for annulment of their contract, alleging it was a usurious loan; the final judgment declared it an equitable mortgage. Upon Atienza’s failure to pay the mortgage debt, the property was sold at public auction on April 17, 1935, in favor of Bautista. Before the sale, the mother and guardian ad litem of minors Rubin, Conrado, and Ernesto Atienza filed a third-party claim, asserting the property had been donated to them by Gregorio Atienza. The execution sale proceeded, and the third-party claimants filed an action (Civil Case No. 6708) against Bautista for recovery of the property. While this action was pending, on January 13, 1936, Felipe Suarez exercised his right of repurchase over the property from Gregorio Atienza and on the same date sold it to petitioner Eustaquio Fule. In Civil Case No. 6708, a judgment was rendered by the Court of Appeals giving the plaintiffs (the minors) a period of six months to redeem the property from Bautista, which they never did.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by issuing an order (enforcing a judgment from a case where Fule was not a party) compelling petitioner Eustaquio Fule to vacate the land.

RULING

Yes. The order of the respondent judge is reversed. Judgments rendered in actions in personam are enforceable only between the parties and their successors in interest, but not against strangers thereto. Since it is admitted that petitioner Eustaquio Fule was not made a party to Civil Case No. 6708, he cannot be bound by any judgment rendered therein, and an order enforcing such judgment against him is in excess of jurisdiction.
The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that Fule is a successor in interest to the parties plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6708 (the minors) by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. First, Felipe Suarez (Fule’s predecessor) repurchased the property from Gregorio Atienza (plaintiff in Civil Case No. 5060), not from the minors who were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 6708. Second, Suarez’s right of repurchase existed since June 10, 1930, and was to subsist for ten years. This right was anterior to and independent of the matters litigated in Civil Cases No. 5060 and No. 6708. Therefore, Suarez could not be bound by the judgments in those cases. By repurchasing, Suarez recovered his preexisting title; he was not a successor in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, as his title was anterior to the institution of the civil cases.
The Court further noted that, under Article 1510 of the Civil Code, the vendor may bring his action against any possessor who holds under the vendee. Since respondents admitted Gregorio Atienza was in possession from 1930 to 1936, Suarez could rightfully repurchase from him. The serious question of whether Suarez should have repurchased from Bautista instead requires final adjudication in an independent action, not in an incident of a civil case to which petitioner was not a party.
The order of possession issued against petitioner is reversed.