Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Beumer VS Beumer
Beumer VS Beumer
HELD:
c.Lot 5845 of the Dumaguete Cadastre
The petition lacks merit. Firstly, foreigners
d.Lot 4, Block 4 of the consolidated survey of may not own lands in the Philippines.
Lots 2144 & 2147 of the Dumaguete Cadastre However, there are no restrictions to the
ownership of buildings or structures on lands
of foreigners. As such, the two houses on Lots
BY INHERITANCE: 1 and 2142 are considered co-owned by the
parties.
[ GR No. 213972, Feb 05, 2018 ] On March 16, 2004, the RTC Branch 55
rendered a Decision,[5] declaring the Heirs
of Nivera as the absolute owners of the
FELICITAS L. SALAZAR v. parcels of land in question, and thereby
REMEDIOS FELIAS + ordering the Heirs of Lastimosa to vacate
the lands and to surrender possession
DECISION thereof. The dispositive portion of the
REYES, JR., J: decision of the RTC Branch 55, reads:
The movant's claim that his/her property WHEREFORE, this Honorable Court
is exempt from execution for being the renders judgment:
family home is not a magic wand that
will freeze the court's hand and forestall a. Declaring the [Heirs of Nivera] absolute
the execution of a final and executory owners of the parcels of land in question
ruling. It is imperative that the claim for as described in the Amended Complaint,
exemption must be set up and proven. and ordering the [Heirs of Lastimosa] to
surrender possession thereof and vacate
This treats of the petition for review on the same;
certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the b. Ordering the [Heirs of Lastimosa],
Decision[2]dated December 62013, and jointly and severally, to pay the [Heirs of
Resolution[3] dated August 7, 2014, Nivera] actual damages in the amount of
rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in Php 270,000.00 for 1975 to 1995, and Php
CA-G.R. CV No. 97309, which affirmed 10,000.00 annually from 1996 and
the execution of the final and executory through all the subsequent years until
judgment issued by the Regional Trial actual possession shall have been restored
Court, Branch 55, Alaminos, Pangasinan to the [Heirs of Nivera]; attorney's fees
(RTC Branch 55). and litigation expenses in the amount of
Php 21,000.00; and costs.
The Antecedent Facts SO ORDERED.[6]
On February 28, 1990, private respondent The Heirs of Lastimosa did not file an
Remedios Felias, representing the heirs of appeal against the trial court's ruling.
Catalino Nivera (Heirs of Nivera) filed a
Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Meanwhile, Felicitas Salazar (Felicitas),
Possession and Damages against the daughter of Romualdo, along with Recto
Spouses Romualdo Lastimosa (Romualdo) and Rizalina filed a Petition for
and Felisa Lastimosa (Fe1isa). The former Annulment of Judgment dated June 22,
sought to recover from the latter four 2006 with the CA. Felicitas sought the
parcels of land located in Baruan, Agno, nullification of the RTC Branch 55's
Pangasinan (subject property). Decision dated March 16, 2004, and the
corresponding Writs of Execution and
On March 3, 1997, during the trial of the Demolition issued pursuant thereto.[7] In
case, Romualdo died. her Petition for Annulment of Judgment,
Felicitas claimed that she was deprived of
Consequently, on July 6, 1998, a Motion due process when she was not impleaded
for Substitution[4] was filed by the in the case for Recovery of Ownership,
decedent's wife, Felisa, and their children before the RTC Branch 55.[8]
Flordeliza Sagun, Reynaldo Lastimosa,
Recto Lastimosa (Recto), Rizalina Ramirez On June 5, 2008, the Former Tenth
(Rizalina), Lily Lastimosa, and Avelino Division of the CA rendered a
Lastimosa (Heirs ofLastimosa). Decision,[9] in CA-G.R. SP No. 95592,
dismissing the Petition for Annulment of already mooted by the subsequent filing of
Judgment. The CA refused to give the motion for execution and demolition
credence to the contention that the Heirs filed by plaintiff through counsel.
of Nivera are at fault for failing to implead
Felicitas as a party defendant in the action The motion for execution and demolition
for recovery of ownership. Rather, the is hereby granted.
failure to include Felicitas in the
proceedings was due to the fault of the Accordingly, let [a] Writ of Execution and
Heirs of Lastimosa, who neglected to Demolition issue to satisfy judgement
include her (Felicitas) in their Motion to rendered in this case.
Substitute. The CA further ratiocinated
that since the RTC acquired jurisdiction SO ORDERED.[15]
over the person of the original defendants
Romualdo and Felisa, the outcome of the Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Heirs of
case is binding on all their heirs or any Lastimosa[16] filed an appeal before the CA,
such persons claiming rights under questioning the Writ of Execution and
them.[10] Demolition issued by the lower court.
On June 3, 2009, this Court affirmed the On December 6, 2013, the Fifteenth
CA decision in the Petition for Annulment Division of the CA rendered the assailed
of Judgment.[11] The Court's ruling became Decision[17] dismissing the appeal on the
final, as per Entry of Judgment, on following grounds, to wit: (i) the Heirs of
October 5, 2009. Lastimosa availed of the wrong remedy by
filing an appeal, instead of a petition
Meanwhile, the Heirs of Lastimosa filed for certiorari under Rule 65; (ii) the
with the RTC Branch 55 an Urgent Motion matter pertaining to the non-inclusion of
to Order the Sheriff to Desist from Making Felicitas is already barred by res judicata,
Demolition dated April 24, 2010. The as it has been settled with finality in CA-
Motion to Desist was premised on the fact G.R. SP No. 95592, and affirmed by the
that the Sheriff cannot execute the lower Supreme Court in G.R. No. 185056; and
court's decision considering that Felicitas (iii) the execution of the decision rendered
had an aliquot share over the property, by the RTC Branch 55 is proper
which had not yet been partitioned.[12] considering that case has long attained
finality. The dispositive portion of the
At about the same time, the Heirs of assailed CA decision reads:
Nivera filed a Motion for Execution and
Demolition dated May 28, 2010. The ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED.
Motion for Execution was anchored on the The assailed Order dated April 6, 2011 is
fact that the Decision dated March 16, AFFIRMED.[18]
2004, in the case for recovery of Felicitas filed a Motion for
ownership, possession and damages had Reconsideration against the same
long attained finality.[13] Decision, which was denied by the CA in
its Resolution[19] dated August 7, 2014.
On July 9, 2010, the RTC Branch 55 issued
an Order granting the Motion for Undeterred, Felicitas filed the instant
Execution and Demolition, and denying petition for review on certiorari[20] under
the Motion to Desist.[14] The dispositive Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
portion of the order reads: seeking the reversal of the assailed CA
decision and resolution.
After going over the allegations in both
motions, the Court resolves to deny the
motion, to order the Sheriff to desist from The Issue
making demolition filed by the defendants
through counsel, it appearing that the The main issue for this Court's resolution
grounds raised in the said motion are rests on whether the CA erred in ordering
the execution of the Decision dated March
16, 2004. Nothing is more settled than the rule that
a judgment that is final and executory is
In seeking the reversal of the assailed immutable and unalterable. It may no
decision, Felicitas claims that the Writ of longer be modified in any respect, except
Execution and Demolition issued by the when the judgment is void, or to correct
RTC Branch 55 was executed against the clerical errors or to make nunc pro
wrong party.[21] She points out that she tunc entries. In the same vein, the decision
was not impleaded in the case for recovery that has attained finality becomes the law
of ownership and possession, and thus the of the case, regardless of any claim that it
decision cannot bind her.[22] Felicitas is erroneous. Any amendment or
argues that she was deprived of her alteration which substantially affects a
property as an heir without due process, as final and executory judgment is null and
she was left out of the proceedings, void for lack of jurisdiction, including the
"completely unable to protect her entire proceedings held for that
rights."[23] In addition, Felicitas contends purpose.[29] Accordingly, the court cannot
that the execution cannot continue as the refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a
Writ of Execution is being enforced final and executory judgment, or quash it,
against property that is exempt from or stay its implementation.[30]
execution, as what is sought to be
demolished is her family home. In this Concomitantly, neither may the parties
regard, Article 155 of the Family Code object to the execution by raising new
ordains that the family home shall be issues of fact or law. The only exceptions
exempt from execution.[24] thereto are when: "(i) the writ of execution
varies the judgment; (ii) there has been a
On the other hand, the Heirs of Nivera change in the situation of the parties
counter that the petition for review making execution inequitable or unjust;
on certiorari is nothing but a dilatory (iii) execution is sought to be enforced
tactic employed by Felicitas to overthrow against property exempt from execution;
and delay the execution of the judgment (iv) it appears that the controversy has
rendered in as early as March 16, been submitted to the judgment of the
2004.[25] The Heirs of Nivera maintain court; (v) the terms of the judgment are
that Felicitas' claim that she was deprived not clear enough and there remains room
of her property as an heir without due for interpretation thereof; or (vi) it
process of law has already been settled appears that the writ of execution has
with finality in the Petition for Annulment been improvidently issued, or that it is
of Judgement, which was dismissed by the defective in substance, or issued against
CA, and this Court.[26] Likewise, anent the the wrong party, or that the judgment debt
claim that the subject property is exempt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the
from execution, the Heirs of Nivera aver writ was issued without authority."[31]
that Felicitas failed to present an iota of
evidence to prove her claim. On the In the case at bar, there is no dispute that
contrary, Felicitas herself admitted in her in as early as March 16, 2004, the RTC
pleadings that she does not reside in the Branch 55 of Alaminos, Pangasinan
subject property in Alaminos, but actually rendered a Decision in the case for
lives in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.[27] Moreover, Recovery of Ownership, Possession and
the subject property belonged to the Heirs Damages, ordering the Heirs of Lastimosa
of Nivera in as early as the 1950s, thereby to vacate the subject properties and
negating Felicitas' claim that it is her surrender them to the Heirs of Nivera.
family home.[28] There is no dispute that this ruling of the
RTC had become final and executory.
Pursuant thereto, the lower court issued a
Ruling of the Court Writ of Execution and Demolition.