G.R. No. L-17712 May 31, 1965
BASILIO UNSAY and ANTONIA MANALO, petitioners, vs. HON. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, FELISA DIAZ and DAVID LIWANAG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Basilio Unsay and Antonia Manalo, along with others, were defendants in Civil Case No. 2798 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, an action filed by respondents Felisa Diaz and David Liwanag for collection of a sum of money and to enforce a right of usufruct over parcels of land in Pasig and Cainta, Rizal. The defendants resisted, claiming that as purchasers for value and in good faith, and with the usufruct not annotated on the Torrens Certificate of Title, they were not obligated to recognize the right. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering, among other things, the defendants to deliver possession of the land to the plaintiffs for the duration of the usufruct. Only defendants Marta Mendoza and Hilario Nonato appealed; petitioners Unsay and Manalo did not. Almost five months after the judgment became final and executory as to them, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging the trial court acted in excess and without jurisdiction because their Torrens title was indefeasible and could not be attacked collaterally. This motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, were denied. The respondent Judge issued a writ of execution to eject petitioners from the land. Petitioners moved to quash the writ, arguing the judgment was not yet final as to them because their co-defendants’ appeal suspended finality as to all defendants. This motion was also denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the orders denying dismissal and denying the motion to quash execution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the action filed in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 2798) may be dismissed on the grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction.
2. Whether execution of the judgment concerning the usufruct may properly issue against the defendants (petitioners) who did not appeal, pending the appeal of their co-defendants.

RULING

1. No, the action may not be dismissed. The Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. The action was an ordinary one to collect money and enforce a usufruct over lands within its territorial jurisdiction, and the parties were duly served with summons. The defense raised by defendants regarding their Torrens title and lack of annotation of the usufruct does not alter the nature of the action or divest the trial court of jurisdiction. The complaint to enforce the usufruct did not constitute a collateral attack against the indefeasible title. Furthermore, petitioners did not invoke the defenses of lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, or indefeasibility of title during the trial in the court of origin.
2. No, execution concerning the usufruct should not issue against petitioners pending the appeal of their co-defendants. Applying the rule from Municipality of Orion v. Concha, whether an appeal by one of several judgment debtors affects those who did not appeal depends on the facts. Here, the defense raised—that there was no annotation of the usufruct on the title and that they were purchasers in good faith—is not personal to any defendant but would apply to all. The liability of the defendants to recognize the usufruct depends on the appellate court’s ruling on this common defense. Therefore, if the judgment is sustained only upon the liability of the appealing defendants and their liability is the basis for the others, and if the judgment is revoked as to the appellants, the result would inure to the benefit of all. Thus, execution on the usufruct aspect should not issue against non-appealing defendants pending appeal. However, if the judgment condemns the defendants severally to pay a sum of money, that part of the judgment may be executed against the petitioners (non-appealing defendants).
The decision of the Court of Appeals was MODIFIED. The order of execution requiring petitioners to deliver possession of the land was annulled. Execution may issue as to the money judgment, if any and if held to be several. In all other respects, the decision was affirmed. No costs.