GR 62556; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992
VENANCIO GONZALES, HON. RICARDO P. TENSUAN as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, and the EX-OFICIO SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY OR ANY OF HIS DEPUTIES, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JULIAN AGUILAR, RAFAEL SANTOS, MARIO SANTOS and VICENTE SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
On February 4, 1957, the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) awarded Lot 29, Block E-418 to petitioner Venancio Gonzales. The award was later cancelled and the lot was re-awarded to Esteban Raterta. Gonzales filed Civil Case No. Q-5550 against PHHC. The trial court dismissed the case but ordered PHHC to reimburse Gonzales. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 31757-R rendered a decision on January 31, 1969, in favor of Gonzales, declaring him the rightful awardee, ordering PHHC to cancel Raterta’s award and execute a Contract to Sell in Gonzales’s favor. During the pendency of the case, the lot was sold by Esteban Raterta to Dalmacio Raterta, who then sold it to respondents Rafael, Mario, and Vicente Santos. Gonzales later filed Civil Case No. Q-23713 for annulment of contracts and titles but this was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Gonzales then sought execution of the 1969 CA judgment. The trial court records were lost. An Order dated August 27, 1979, in Civil Case No. Q-5550 noted the loss and indicated that the time during which the records could not be found should be deducted from the reglementary period for execution. PHHC, upon legal opinion, voluntarily executed the judgment by cancelling Raterta’s award and executing a deed of sale in favor of Gonzales, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 268893 in his name on June 3, 1980. On May 26, 1980, Gonzales filed a motion for a writ of possession based on the 1969 CA decision. The trial court granted the writ on July 17, 1980, and it was issued on September 25, 1980. Respondents filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP 11334-R). Initially denied, the CA upon reconsideration set aside the writ of execution on July 8, 1981, ruling it was improper as the 1969 decision had become final 11 years earlier. Gonzales’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioner was denied due process when the Court of Appeals resolved the case on the merits without first requiring him to answer.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error of law in not maintaining the dismissal of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 11334-R.
RULING
1. No, petitioner was not denied due process. While the Court of Appeals did not strictly follow the procedure of requiring an answer under Rule 47, the records show petitioner was given a fair opportunity to be heard. He was furnished copies of resolutions and the petition, granted extensions, filed a comment, filed two motions for reconsideration, and submitted a memorandum. Having been heard on multiple occasions, there was no denial of due process.
2. Yes, petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession. The finality of the 1969 CA decision is undisputed. The trial court’s Order of August 27, 1979, acknowledged that the case records were lost through no fault of Gonzales. The Supreme Court invoked principles of equity, ruling that delays not attributable to the prevailing party should be excluded in computing the five-year period to execute a judgment by motion. Therefore, the motion for a writ of possession filed on May 26, 1980, was deemed timely.
3. Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave error. The writ of possession was a proper consequence of the final judgment in Gonzales’s favor. The PHHC had already voluntarily executed the judgment by issuing a new title in Gonzales’s name. The respondents, as purchasers pendente lite, were bound by the judgment against their predecessor-in-interest, Esteban Raterta. The trial court correctly issued the writ to place Gonzales in possession of the property adjudicated to him.
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and directed the trial court to immediately enforce the writ of possession in favor of Venancio Gonzales.