CIVIL PROCEDURE - Trial - Incidents/Processes - Intervention - Rule 19; Rule 11, Sec.

Yu v. Miranda
G.R. No. 225752 | March 27, 2019 | J. Caguioa

Topic: Incidents/Processes - Intervention - Rule 19; Rule 11, sec. 3

Case Summary: Miranda filed an action for sum of money with prayer for issuance of preliminary writ of attachment
against Morning Star et al. Subject properties were attached. Yu’s filed a motion for leave to intervene, claiming that they
were the real owners of the properties attached (which were registered in Morning Star’s name). RTC ruled in favor of
Miranda and denied Yu’s motion for leave. The RTC decision became final and executory. CA dismissed Yu’s petition for
certiorari because the RTC decision had already attained finality, but it agreed that RTC should have allowed them to
intervene.

SC held that Yu’s can no longer be allowed to intervene since the RTC decision has already attained finality. But since
they are necessary parties, other remedies are available to them to protect their interest. SC noted that Yu’s already filed
a case for recovery of the property and if they win, the properties cannot be levied in favor of Miranda.

Petitioners: SEVERINO A. YU, RAMON A. YU, and LORENZO A. YU

Respondents: DAVID MIRANDA, MORNING STAR HOMES CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION -SAN JOSE BINAN
-HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., TIMMY RICHARD T. GABRIEL, and LILIBETH GABRIEL

DOCTRINE:
The case where Yu’s seek to intervene in has already ceased. Jurisprudence has made it clear that intervention can no
longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment

FACTS
1. March 8, 2012 - Miranda filed an action for Sum of Money w/ prayer for issuance of Preliminary Attachment
against respondents Morning Star Homes and Timmy & Lilibeth Gabriel before RTC (Miranda v. Morning
Star - Civil case No. B-8623)
a. Alleged that Morning Star sought to establish a housing project and entered into a contract with Miranda
for the supply and financing of backfilling material for the project
b. Morning Star issued checks to Miranda but it defaulted on its obligation, with total amount of unpaid
obligation of P4,100,009.30
c. Miranda also prayed for issuance of preliminary attachment over 1.56 hectares of land registered
under the name of Morning Star (TCT nos. T-788493 to T-788751)
2. March 12, 2012 - RTC issued an Order GRANTING the prayer for preliminary attachment and issued the writ.
a. Subject properties were attached to secure the outcome of the trial and to answer for pecuniary liability
to Miranda
3. March 2013 - Petitioners Yu became aware of the Miranda v. Morning Star case.
4. April 29, 2013 - Yu’s filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene
a. Claimed that they have legal interest in the properties attached. While these were in the name of
Morning Star, they were the real owners. They only transferred the titles to Morning Star to facilitate its
loan with the HDMF under the GLAD program
b. Also claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale they executed in favor of Morning Star was null and void ab
initio for lack of consideration
5. May 19, 2013 - RTC - GRANTED Miranda’s complaint. This became final and executory.
6. July 29, 2013 - RTC DENIED Yu’s Motion for Leave to Intervene on the ground that they are not the
registered owners and their rights may be protected in separate proceeding
7. Oct 25, 2013 - Yu’s filed a petition for certiorari before CA,
a. Miranda filed a Comment alleging that Yu’s should purse their claims before RTC because they did not
file MR of the RTC order and they already filed a complaint before RTC for nullification of Deed of Sale
8. CA - DISMISSED Yu’s petition for certiorari
a. Held that RTC should have allowed Yu’s to intervene because they are claiming to be the real
owners of the property. If they were not allowed to intervene, the proceedings would become more
unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable since it might tum out that the properties attached
do not belong to Morning Star,
 CIVIL PROCEDURE - Trial - Incidents/Processes - Intervention - Rule 19; Rule 11, Sec.3
b. It nevertheless denied the Rule 65 Petition because the issue has already been rendered moot and
academic in view of the fact that the Decision dated May 19, 2013 of the R TC already became final
and executory
9. Yu’s filed MR. CA denied
10. Hence this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

ISSUES
1. W/N CA erred in not setting aside the RTC Order denying the Yu’s motion for leave to intervene? - NO
a. RTC decision in the Miranda v. Morning Star case was already final and executory
b. The case where Yu’s seek to intervene in has already ceased. Jurisprudence has made it clear that
intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment
c. Yu’s are NOT INDISPENSABLE PARTIES1
i. Yu’s only had INCIDENTAL INVOLVEMENT in the COA - The only purpose of Yu's attempt to
intervene is to question the inclusion of the subject properties in the coverage of the preliminary
attachment imposed by the RTC.
1. The issue of the ownership of the properties and the propriety of their inclusion in the
preliminary attachment is not determinative of whether Miranda has a COA for recovery
of sum of money against Morning Star et al.
d. Yu’s are at most NECESSARY PARTIES2
i. Non-inclusion of necessary parties does not prevent the court from proceeding in the
action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such
necessary party.
e. The filing of a motion for intervention was not even absolutely necessary and indispensable for the
petitioners Yu to question the inclusion of the subject properties in the coverage of the Writ of Preliminary
Attachment.
i. Rule 57, Sec. 143 - if the property attached is claimed by a 3rd person and such person makes an
affidavit of his title or right to possession, and serves the affidavit to the sheriff and the attaching
party, the sheriff is not bound to keep the property under attachment
1. Yu’s did not file this affidavit
f. Attachment is only adjunct to the main suit. Therefore, it can have no independent existence apart from a
suit on a claim of the plaintiff against the defendant.
i. Any relief against such attachment can only be disposed of it that principal proceeding
ii. With the cessation of the Miranda v. Morning Star case and the RTC decision attaining finality, the
attachment sought to be questioned by Yu’s ceased to exist
g. Navarro v. Ermita case cited by Yu’s, where SC allowed intervention even if judgment has already
attained finality, does not apply
i. Main consideration was grave violation of the Constitution, this is not an issue in the Yu case
h. Yu’s argue there is no other remedy available to protect their interest over the properties
i. SC held that this was incorrect. Under Rule 3, Sec. 9, while the non-inclusion of necessary
parties does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, the judgment rendered therein
shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. It is elementary that a judgment
cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action
1. Miranda v. Morning Star did not deal with ownership of the properties, only recovery for a
sum of money.
ii. Any action by Yu’s questioning the registration of the TCTs in the name of Morning Star in another
proceeding will not interfere nor intrude whatsoever with the RTC's final and executory Decision

1
Parties in interest without whom no final determination of the recovery of sum case can be had
2
Not indispensable, but ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for
a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action
3
if the property attached is claimed by any third person, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right to
the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter
has possession of the attached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound to
keep the property under attachment, unless the attaching pai1y or his agent, on demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond
approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied upon.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE - Trial - Incidents/Processes - Intervention - Rule 19; Rule 11, Sec.3
i. Yu’s themselves acknowledged that they are already pursuing another remedy to recover the subject
properties from respondent Morning Star when it filed Civil Case No. B-91264 before the RTC.
i. This is currently pending
ii. In the eventuality that the petitioners Yu's action in Civil Case No. B-9126 will prosper,
consequently, the subject properties would not be levied in favor of respondent Miranda in
satisfaction of the final and executory Decision in Civil Case No. B-8623 :and would necessarily
be awarded to the petitioners Yu.
1. Miranda v. Sps. Mallari et al - if the judgment obligor no longer has any right, title or
interest in the property levied uport, then there can be no lien that may be created in
favor of the judgment obligee by reason of the levy. Hence, it cannot be said that there is
no remedy available on the part of the petitioners Yu.

RULING - Petition DENIED for lack of merit

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 22, 2016 and Resolution dated July 13,
2016 of the Court of Appeals, Special Fifth Division in CA-G.R. SP. No. 132394 are AFFIRMED.

4
action for specific performance or rescission of contract to sell, annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of titles,
reconveyance and damages against respondents Morning Star, Lilibeth, and Timmy precisely to gain ownership over the
subject properties, which is the exact same reason that impelled the petitioners Yu to intervene in Civil Case No. B-8623