Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cabang vs. Basay
Cabang vs. Basay
Cabang vs. Basay
G.R.No.180587.March20,2009.*
SIMEONCABANG,VIRGINIACABANGandVENANCIO
CABANGALIASDONDON,petitioners,vs.MR.&MRS.
GUILLERMOBASAY,respondents.
Judgments; Immutability of Final Judgments; Exceptions; A
final and executory judgment may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court
that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.It bears
stressing that the purpose for which the records of the case were
remanded to the court of origin was for the enforcement of the
appellatecourts final and executory judgment in CAG.R. CV No.
55207 which, among others, declared herein respondents entitled
to the possessionofLotNo.7777oftheMolaveTownsitesubjectto
the provisions of Articles 448, 546, 547 an 548 of the Civil Code.
Indeed, the decision explicitly decreed that the remand of the
records of the case was for thecourtoforigin[t]o determine the
rights of the defendantsappellees under the aforesaid
article[s] of the New Civil Code, and to render judgment
thereon in accordance with the evidence and this decision. A
finalandexecutoryjudgmentmay
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.
173
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
173
clerical errors; (2) the socalled nunc pro tunc entries which cause
noprejudicetoanyparty,and(3)voidjudgments.
Same; Writs of Execution; As a matter of settled legal principle,
a writ of execution must adhere to every essential particulars of the
judgment sought to be executedan order of execution may not vary
or go beyond the terns of the judgment it seeks to enforce.As a
matterofsettledlegalprinciple,awritofexecutionmust adhere to
every essential particulars of the judgment sought to be
executed. An order of execution may not vary or go beyond the
ternsofthejudgmentitseekstoenforce.Awritofexecutionmust
conform to the judgmentand if it is different from, goes beyond
orvariesthetenorofthejudgmentwhichgivesitlife,itisanullity.
Otherwise stated, when the order of execution and the
correspondingwritissuedpursuantthereto is not in harmony with
andexceedsthejudgmentwhichgivesitlife,theyhavepro tantono
validity to maintain otherwise would be to ignore the
constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property
withoutdueprocessoflaw.
Appeals; As a general rule, points of law, theories and issues
not brought to the attention of the trial court cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.As aptly pointed out by the appellate
court, from the inception of Civil Case No. 9920127, it was
already of judicial notice that the improvements introduced
by petitioners on the litigated property are residential houses
notfamilyhomes.Belatedlyinterposingsuchanextraneousissueat
suchalatestageoftheproceedingistantamounttointerferingwith
and varying the terms of the final and executory judgment and a
violationofrespondentsrighttodueprocessbecauseAsageneral
rule,pointsoflaw,theoriesandissuesnotbroughttotheattention
ofthetrialcourtcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Fora
contraryrulewouldbeunfairtotheadversepartywhowouldhave
no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new
theory,whichitcouldhavedonehaditbeenawareofifatthetime
ofthehearingbeforethetrialcourt.
174
174
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
homeshallnotexceed,atthetimeofitsconstitution,theamountof
P300,000.00inurbanareasandP200,000.00inruralareas.Under
theaforequotedprovision,afamilyhomeisdeemedconstitutedon
ahouseandalotfromthetimeitisoccupiedasafamilyresidence.
Thereisnoneedtoconstitutethesamejudiciallyorextrajudicially.
Same; A family home cannot be established on property held in
coownership with third persons.Therecanbenoquestionthata
family home is generally exempt from execution, provided it was
dulyconstitutedassuch.Itislikewiseagiventhatthefamilyhome
mustbeconstitutedonpropertyownedbythepersonsconstituting
it. Indeed as pointed out in Kelley, Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc.,
557 SCRA 499 (2008), [T]he family home must be part of the
propertiesoftheabsolutecommunityortheconjugalpartnership,or
oftheexclusivepropertiesofeitherspousewiththelattersconsent,
or on the property of the unmarried head of the family. In other
words:The family home must be established on the properties
of (a)theabsolutecommunity,or(b)theconjugalpartnership,or(c)
theexclusivepropertyofeitherspousewiththeconsentoftheother.
It cannot be established on property held in coownership
with third persons. However, it can be established partly on
community property, or conjugal property and partly on the
exclusivepropertyofeitherspousewiththeconsentofthelatter.If
constituted by an unmarried head of a family, where there is no
communalorconjugal
175
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
175
176
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
177
Nopronouncementastocost.
SOORDERED.
Aggrieved, plaintiffappellants filed an appeal before the Court
ofAppealsassailingtheabovedecision.Saidappealwasdocketedas
CAG.R.CVNo.55207.
On December 23, 1998, the Court of Appeals, through the then
SecondDivision,renderedaDecisionreversingtheassaileddecision
anddecreedasfollows:
WHEREFORE, the judgment herein appealed from is
hereby REVERSED, and judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the plaintiffsappellants to be entitled to the
possessionofLotNo.7777oftheMolaveTownsite,subjectto
therightsofthedefendantsappelleesunderArticle(sic)448,
546,547and548oftheNewCivilCode.
The records of this case are hereby ordered remanded to
the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the
rightsofthedefendantsappelleesundertheaforesaidarticle
(sic) of the New Civil Code, and to render judgment thereon
inaccordancewiththeevidenceandthisdecision.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Defendantappellees thereafter filed a petition for review on
certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme
Court docketed as G.R. No. 139601. On October 18, 1999, the
Supreme Court issued a Resolution denying the petition for late
filingandlackofappropriateservice.
Subsequently, or on February 15, 2000, the Supreme Court
Resolutionhadbecomefinalandexecutory.
Consequently,thecasewasremandedtothecourta quo andthe
latter commissioned the Municipal Assessor of Molave, Zamboanga
delSur to determine the value of the improvements introduced by
thedefendantappellees.
TheCommissionersReportdeterminedthatatthetimeofocular
inspection,therewerethree(3)residentialbuildingsconstructedon
the property in litigation. During the ocular inspection, plaintiff
appellants son, Gil Basay, defendantappellee Virginia Cabang,
andoneBernardoMendez,anoccupantofthelot,werepresent.In
the
178
178
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
Virginia
Cabang
Jovencio
Capuno
Amelito
Mata
Lot
No.
Area
(sq.m.)
7777
32.55
Improvement Appraised
Value
Building
P21,580.65
7777
15.75
Building
18,663.75
7777
14.00
Building
5,658.10
Toilet
Plants&
Trees
1,500.00
2,164.00
TOTAL
P49,566.50
Thereafter,uponverbalrequestofdefendantappellees,thecourt
a quo initsOrderdeclaredthatthetiepointofthesurveyshouldbe
the BLLM (Bureau of Lands Location Monument) and authorized
theofficialsurveyoroftheBureauofLandstoconductthesurveyof
thelitigatedproperty.
PursuanttotheaboveOrder,theCommunityEnvironmentand
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of
EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)RegionXIdesignated
Geodetic Engineer Diosdado L. de Guzman to [act] as the official
surveyor.OnMarch2002,Engr.DeGuzmansubmittedhissurvey
reportwhichstated,inter alia:
1.That on September 18, 2001, the undersigned had
conducted verification survey of Lot 7777, Ts222 and the
adjacentlotsforreferencepurposeswithbothpartiespresent
onthesurvey;
2.That the survey was started from BLLM #34, as
directedbytheOrder,takingsideshotsoflotcorners,existing
concretefence,roadandgoingback to BLLM #34, a point of
reference;
3.ConsideringthattherewasonlyoneBLLMexistingon
the ground, the undersigned conducted astronomical
observation on December 27, 2001 in order to check the
carriedAzimuthofthetraverse;
4.Thatperresultofthesurveyconducted,itwasfoundout
and ascertained that the area occupied by Mrs. Virginia
Cabang is a portion of Lot 7777, with lot assignment to be
knownasLot7777Awithanareaof303squaremetersand
portion of Lot 7778 with lot assignment to be known as Lot
7778A with an area of 76 square meters. On the same lot,
por
179
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
179
180
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
the
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
181
182
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
183
Asageneralrule,pointsoflaw,theoriesandissuesnotbroughtto
theattentionofthetrialcourtcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeon
appeal. For a contrary rule would be unfair to the adverse party
who would have no opportunity to present further evidence
material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been
awareofifatthetimeofthehearingbeforethetrialcourt.20
184
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
Theactualvalueofthefamilyhomeshallnotexceed,at
the time of its constitution, the amount of P300,000.00 in
urban areas and P200,000.00 in rural areas.24 Under the
aforequotedprovision,afamilyhomeisdeemedconstituted
onahouseandalotfromthetimeitisoccupiedasafamily
residence.Thereisnoneedtoconstitutethesamejudicially
orextrajudicially.25
Therecanbenoquestionthatafamilyhomeisgenerally
exemptfromexecution,26provideditwasdulyconstitutedas
such.Itislikewiseagiventhatthefamilyhomemustbe
_______________
21A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code
of the Philippines, Vol. I (1990 ed.), p. 508, citing the Code Commission
of1947,pp.1819,20.
22CivilCode,Article152.
23 Patricio v. Dario III, G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006, 507
SCRA438,444,citingArticle152,CivilCode.
24FamilyCode,Art.157.
25Manacop v. Court of Appeals,342Phil.735,741;277SCRA57,63
(1997).
26RulesofCourt,Rule39,Section13(a).
185
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
185
Thereinliesthefatalflawinthepostulateofpetitioners.
For all their arguments to the contrary, the stark and
immutablefactisthatthepropertyonwhichtheiralleged
family home stands is owned by respondents and the
question of ownership had been long laid to rest with the
finalityoftheappellatecourtsjudgmentinCAG.R.CVNo.
55207.Thus,petitionerscontinuedstayonthesubjectland
isonlybymeretoleranceofrespondents.
All told, it is too late in the day for petitioners to raise
thisissue.Withoutdoubt,theinstantcasewherethefamily
home issue has been vigorously pursued by petitioners is
butaclearcutploymeanttoforestalltheenforcementofan
otherwise final and executory decision. The execution of a
final judgment is a matter of right on the part of the
prevailing
_______________
27G.R.No.172263,July9,2008,557SCRA499,502.
28Id.,citingFamilyCode,Art.156.
186
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
VOL.582,MARCH20,2009
187
recognizedexceptions37tothisrule,noneexistsinthiscase
tojustifyadeparturetherefrom.
_______________
36 Pacific Airways Corporation v. Tonda, 441 Phil. 156, 162; 392
SCRA625,629(2002).
37 These recognized exceptions are: (1) when the findings are
groundedentirelyonspeculation,surmisesorconjectures;(2)whenthe
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when
thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion;(4)whenthejudgmentisbasedona
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;
(6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the
issuesofthecase,oritsfindingsarecontrarytotheadmissionsofboth
theappellantandtheappellee;(7)whenthefindingsarecontrarytothe
trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased;(9)whenthefactssetforthin
the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not
disputedbytherespondent;(10)whenthefindingsoffactarepremised
on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
onrecord(Marita C. Bernaldo v. The Ombudsman and the Department
of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No. 156286, August 13, 2008, 562
SCRA 60); and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered,
would
justify
different
conclusion
(Superlines
188
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cabang vs. Basay
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheDecisionof
theCourtofAppealsdatedMay31,2007inCAG.R.CVNo.
76755 declaring respondents entitled to the writ of
execution and ordering petitioners to vacate the subject
property, as well as the Resolution dated September 21,
2007 denying the motion for reconsideration, are
AFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
AustriaMartinez, Tinga,** Nachura and Peralta, JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.Afinalandexecutorydecisionpromulgatedand
awritofexecutionissuedbeforetheeffectivityoftheFamily
Code can be executed on a house and lot constituted as a
family home under the provisions of the said Code.
(Manacop vs. Court of Appeals,277SCRA57[1997])
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a
judgment becomes final and executory it becomes
immutable and unalterablethe same may no longer be
modifiedinanyrespect,evenifthemodificationismeantto
correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of
fact or law, and whether made by the highest court of the
land.(Garcia vs. Philippine Airlines,558SCRA171[2008])
o0o
_______________
12421243; 336 SCRA 97, 110 (2000); & Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals,
349 Phil. 275, 282283; 285 SCRA 351, 357 (1998); Aguirre v. Court of
Appeals,G.R.No.122249,January29,2004,421SCRA310,319;C & S
Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of Appeals,442Phil.279,278;394SCRA
82,88(2002).
** In lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. ChicoNazario, per Special
OrderNo.590datedMarch17,2009.