GR 53856; (August, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53856 August 21, 1980
OSCAR VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO M. LAZARO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXV; CLERK OF COURT and DEPUTY SHERIFF of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXV; EMPEROR FILMS INT’L. (PHILS.), INC. and RICARDO C. VENTANILLA, respondents.
FACTS
Emperor Films Int’l. (Phils.), Inc. filed Civil Case No. 107607 against “Broadway Theater” as the defendant. The complaint was defective from the outset because “Broadway Theater” is not a natural or juridical person capable of being sued. Ricardo C. Ventanilla, the lessee of the Broadway Theater, filed an answer and later executed a compromise agreement with Emperor Films, wherein he acknowledged a debt of P12,662 and agreed that execution would immediately issue upon any default in payment. The lower court approved this compromise and rendered a judgment based on it.
Oscar Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation, the owner of the Broadway Theater building in Cabanatuan City, which it had leased to Ricardo C. Ventanilla, sought to restrain the enforcement of the writ of execution issued in that case against the theater property. The petitioner had previously filed a similar petition with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on the grounds that the Court of Appeals could only issue the writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and that the petitioner, not being a party to the original case, could not seek a review of its orders.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 107607, a judgment against the lessee Ricardo C. Ventanilla based on a compromise, can be validly enforced against the property of the theater owner, Oscar Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation, which was not a party to the suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and granted the writ of prohibition. The legal logic is clear: a judgment can only be executed against the parties to the case and their privies. Oscar Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation was never a party to Civil Case No. 107607. The original defendant was misnamed as “Broadway Theater,” an entity incapable of suit. While the defect was arguably cured by the voluntary appearance and compromise of the lessee, Ricardo C. Ventanilla, this only made him the real party in interest and the judgment debtor. The resulting judgment was solely a personal obligation of Ricardo Ventanilla.
Consequently, enforcing this judgment against the property of the corporation, which is a distinct juridical entity and merely the lessor of the building where the theater business was conducted, is legally untenable. The sheriff’s act would constitute an excess of jurisdiction, as there is no lawful basis to levy on the owner’s property for the personal debt of its lessee. The Court emphasized that the anomaly stemmed from the plaintiff’s failure to sue the correct party and the trial court’s oversight in not formally substituting the real defendant. Therefore, the lower court and its sheriff were directed to desist from enforcing the judgment against the petitioner’s properties.