Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Castro Vs Mendoza - JJardeleza - RIght of Redemption
Castro Vs Mendoza - JJardeleza - RIght of Redemption
Castro Vs Mendoza - JJardeleza - RIght of Redemption
THIRD DIVISION
- versus -
x------------------------------------------~~x
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
Penned by Associate Justice Sesinal1do E. Villon with Justices Fiorito S. Macalino and Pedro B.
Coralcs concurring, rollo pp. 55-73.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 212778
SP No. 108859. The CA reversed and set aside issuances of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in connection with the execution of
its Decision in Reg. Case No. 739-Bulacan '94. 2 The PARAD held that
petitioners Teddy Castro and Lauro C. Sebastian (petitioners) are entitled to
redeem the property subject of this case.
The controversy started when Jesus (owner-heir) sold his share in the
original Santos property8 to respondent Municipality on October 27, 1992.
Jesus sold his undivided interest therein of 2,132.42 square meters for the
Id. at 76-90.
Id. at 56.
F
Id. at 188-234.
Id. at 76.
Id. at 77.
7
8 /d.at87.
Refers to both the entire landholding of Simeon co-owned l 1,heirs. and the portion thereof owned
and subsequently sold by Jesus to the Municipality of Bustos
Decision 3 G.R. No. 212778
amount of P 1.2 Million which the respondent Municipality acquired for the
9
expansion and construction of the Bustos public market. Hereafter, we shall
refer to the 2,132.42 square meter property sold by Jesus as the prope1iy. As
of 1989, the lots surrounding the first public market in respondent
Municipality, including the original Santos property and the portion sold by
10
Jesus, have been classified as a commercial area.
From 1991 to 1994, all phases of the sales transaction between Jes us
and respondent Municipality (negotiation and acquisition) and the
subsequent construction and completion of the public market, were effected
without issue or complaint from the petitioners. Most notably, after the
transfer of ownership of the prope1iy to respondent Municipality, the latter,
in 1993, began construction of the public market which was eventually
11
inaugurated on August 18, 1994.
On June 28, 1995, the PARAD ruled that: (1) petitioners are the
conclusive tenants of the entire original Santos property, including the
property now owned by respondent Municipality; and (2) both Jesus and
respondent Municipality failed to give notice of the sale of the property to
. petitioners.
t l1e tenants, l1erem .. ts Tl
. 1us:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of [petitioners] and against
defendants [Santos and the Municipality of Bustos].
Likewise, [petitioners] arc entitled to exercise the right of
redemption of the property in question.
No pronouncement as to costs. 16
86-w
14
Id. at 85.
15
Id. at
"' Id. at 90.~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 212778
This time petitioners appealed to the CA and their case was docketed
19
as CA-G.R. SP No. 47234. On July 17, 2002, the CA affirmed the uniform
rulings of the PARAD and the DARAB that petitioners are tenants of the
property who did not receive notice of its sale by Jesus. The CA reinstated
the PARAD's original ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the
appealed Decision of the DARAB [is] SET ASIDE. The
Decision of the PARAD is hereby REIN STA TED with the
MODIFICA TJON that Jesus Santos and the [respondent
Municipality] are ordered to pay, jointly and severally,
petitioners the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
(PS0,000.00) PESOS as payment of moral damages and the
amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (1~20,000.00) PESOS
as attorney's fees. 20
17
Id. at 98.
18
Id. at I 00.
19
Penned by the;: pssociatc Justice Ruben T. Reyes (who became Associate Justice of this Court) with
Justices Renato v Dacudao and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring, id. at I 01-112.
20
Id. at 111.
21
/d.atll4.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 212778
The succeeding Orders of the PARAD reciting the incidents and its
respective rulings thereon are contained in its Writ of Execution and
Possession dated September 29, 2006:
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2006, an Implementation
Report was submitted by the DARAB Sheriff stating that
on March 6, 2006, he personally delivered [a] copy of the
said writ to all persons concerned particularly to the
Municipal Mayor of Bustos, Bulacan, together with the
manager[']s check with an amount of One Million Two
Hundred Thousand pesos to redeem the subject
landholding, Mr. Carlito Reyes, Municipal Mayor of
Bustos thru Mr. Vandcrvcrt Bruales, the [m]ayor's private
secretary, received their copy but refused to receive the said
check averring that they will refer this matter to their
counsel;
2J
24
Rollo, pp. 120-r22.
Id. at 128.
25
Id. at 128-132.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 212778
xxx
26 Id at 129-131.
27
2
CA rollo, pp. I
Id. at 126-156.
16-125.
{
29 Rollo, p. 178.
Jo Id. at 178-182.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 212778
From this latest denial, private respondents directly sought relief from
the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. I 08859. 34 They alleged grave abuse of discretion
by the PARAD in amending the already final and executory decision of June
28, 1995 and imposing the transfer of ownership of the prope11y to
petitioners. Private respondents questioned the following: (1) inadequacy of
the redemption price set at Pl .2 Million, which was way below the actual
amount of P6 Million spent by respondent Municipality in the construction
of the public market; (2) petitioners' belated and invalid tender of payment
of the Pl .2 Million redemption price; (3) issuance of a Writ of Possession
and the subsequent execution of a Deed of Conveyance in favor of
petitioners; and (4) failure to ascertain the actual lot description and titling of
the property.
31
Id. at 181-182.
n Id. at 183-185.
33
Id. at 186-187.
34
Id. at 188-234.
35
Id. at 66.
36
Id. at 68.
37
Id. at 72.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 212778
0
DISMISSAL WAS AFFIRMED WITH FlNALlTY ~
Tl-IE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-GR CV NO. 90751
Decision 13 G.R. No. 212778
39
Id. at 18-21
Decision 14 G.R. No. 212778
40
Otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
11
' In a juridical sense, things as property includes not only material objects, but also rights over the
object. Only rights which are patrimonial in character can be considered as things. See CIVIL CODI~, Art.
414 and Arturo Tolentino, II CIVIL CODI" OFTllE PHILIPPINES 5 (1983).
42
Sec. 11. /.'.,xec11tio11 of .1pecial judg111enls. - When a judgment requires the performance of any act
other than those mentioned in the two preceding sections, a certified copy of the judgment shall be
attached to the writ or execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same
is rendered, or upon any other person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such party or
person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment.
43
Sec. I0. Execution ufj11c~f{11ientsfur spec[flc act. -
(a) Conveyance, delive1:v q( deecl.1, or other specific acts; vesting title. - If a judgment directs a party to
execute a conveyance of land or personal property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform
any other specific act in connection therewith, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the
court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by
the court and the act when so clone shall have like effect as if done by the pariy. If real or personal
property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may by an
order divest the title of any party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a
conveyance executed in due form of law.
(b) Sale uf real ur personal properly. -- tr the judgment be for the sale or real or personal property, to
sell such property, describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the judgment.
(c) Delive1y or restitution(?( real property. - The officer shall demand of the person against whom the
judgment for the delivery or restitution or real property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under
him to peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working clays, and restore possession thereof to the
judgment obligee, otherwise, the ol'ficer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the assistance, ii'
necessary, or appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to
retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any costs, damages,
rents or profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the same manner as a judgment for money.
(cl) Removal q( improve111ent.1 on proper~v .rnhjecl <~(execution. - When the properly subject of the
execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer
shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued
upon motion or the judgment obligee atler the hearing and a Iler the former has failed to remove the same
within a reasonable time fixed by the court.
(e) Delivery (fpersonal property. - In judgment for the delivery of personal property, the officer shall
take possession of the same ai~~with deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy any judgment
roe mooey as thernin provided~
Decision 15 G.R. No. 212778
We disagree.
r
44
See CIVIL CODE, Art. 1191 and Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Mc!jestic Finance and
Investment Co., Inc,, G.R. No. 169694, December 9, 2015, 777 SCRA 37, 46-47.
45
See RULES or COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 9 (b) and Sec. I 0.
"" RULES 01' COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2.
47
48
Oco v. Limbaring, G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 348, 358.
Perez v. Aquino, G.R. No. 217799, March 16, 2016, 787 SCRA 581, 588
Decision 16 G.R. No. 212778
49
See Edgardo L. Paras, II CIVIL CODE OF THE Pi llLIPPINES ANNOTATED 3 (2016).
50
Estrella v. Francisco, G.R. No. 209384, June 27, 2016; Perez v. Aquino, supra.
51
In its Answer to the original Complaint, the respondent Municipality alieged that: "[l]n as much that a
certificate of ownership of the lot on which to construct our public market is required before our
application for loan could be approved, this Office submitted lo the Minute II Fringe Program Office, the
Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit "A") executed by the Spouses Jesus Santos and Simplicio Pablo in favor
of the Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan." Rollo, p. 84.
52
See CIVIL CODI~. Art. 525.
53
See CIVIL CODE, Art. 541. (
54
See CIVIL CODE, Art. 526.
55
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 16
Decision 17 G.R. No. 212778
However, therein lies the rub since the DARAB's resolutions assailed
by private respondents unceremoniously effected their dispossession from
the property by adjudicating and transferring its ownership, declaring an
owner different from their original lessor, respondent Municipality. Plainly,
as vendor-owner of the market stalls, possessors of the property, private
respondents are necessary parties who ought to have been impleaded in the
case if complete relief is to be accorded those already parties, or for a
complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. 58
Considering the nature and devotion to public use of the property, the
questionable redemption made by petitioners, the continued existence of the
public market on the property, and absence of proof of petitioners' continued
cultivation of the property, we allow the intervention filed by respondents
even at that late stage.
True, the rule on intervention requires that the motion be filed at any
time before rendition of judgment by the trial comi. 59 On more than one
occasion, however, we have allowed, in exceptional circumstances,
intervention even after judgment of the trial court or lower tribunal. 60 The
rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure is intended to make the
powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to
facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims overriding
technicalities on the timeliness of its filing. 61 Applied to this case, the
56
The records do not show how petitioners remain in cultivation of the entirety of the prope1ty.
57
See Pinlac v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 91486, September I 0, 2003, 410 SCRA 419, 425-426, citing
Mago v. Court ofAppea/s, G.R. No. 115624, February 25, 1999, 303 SCRA 600, 608-609.
58
RULES OF COUR'r, Rule 3, Sec. 8.
59
RULES OF Cou1rr, Ruic 19, Sec. 2.
60
Navy Officers' Vi/luge Association, Inc. (NOVA/) v. Republic, G.R. No. 177168, August 3, 2015, 764
SCRA 524; Galiciav. Manliquez Vda. De Mind~o. 155785, April 13, 2007. 521SCRA85.
"' Nn/ue ' Cou'I ofAppeal., .mpm at 424425.
1
Decision 18 G.R. No. 212778
xxx
xxx
xxx
D. ASSUMING THAT THE [PETITIONERS] MAY
PROPERLY REDEEM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION,
THEY CANNOT DO SO SINCE THEY I-IA VE FAILED
2
< See Navy O.f/icers Village Association, Inc. (NOVA!) v. Republic, supra at 544. (
6
] Mago v. Court qf'Appeals, supra at 608.
61
' National Power Corporation v. Co11rt o/Appeals, G.R. No. 84695, May 8, 1990, 185 SCR/\ 169, 173
Decision 19 G.R. No. 212778
Basic is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable. Indeed, nothing is more settled in law than that a
judgment, once it attains finality, can no longer be modified in any respect,
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the land. 67 Once a case is decided with
finality, the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest. 68 Such a rule
rests on public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error,
the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must
become final at some definite date fixed by law. 69 All litigation must come
to an end; any contrary posturing renders justice' inutile and reduces to
65
CA ro/lo, pp. 335-337. Underlining in the original.
66 '
/cl at 339-340.
67 De Ocampo v. RPN-9/Radio Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 192947, December 9, 2015, 777 SCRA 183,
189-190.
68 Siy v. National labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 154, 161.
69
Fi/ipro, ~ v. Permanent Savings & loan Bank, G.R. No. 142236, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA
430, 438. ~
Decision 20 G.R. No. 212778
The CA correctly ruled that the assailed orders and resolutions of the
PARAD altered the June 28, 1995 Decision and disposed of matters which
were not originally contemplated by the decision. However, after stating the
rule on finality of judgments and enumerating the instances when a Writ of
Possession may issue, the CA concluded that the assailed PARAD rulings
were not covered by the original decision, without elaborating its reasons for
so ruling.
On the other hand, in ordering the amendment of its June 28, 1995
Decision, the PARAD cited the exception to the rule of clarifying an
ambiguity caused by an omission in the disposition of the decision which
may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision.
xxx
3. Ordering the amendment of the dispositive portion of
the July 17, 2002 decision by including the following
orders:
7
CO IT a.k.a. Go17zalo Co It v. A111'1011y Co, et al., G.R. No. 198127, October 5, 2016.
71
72
Pascual v. Daq~ioag, G.R. No. 162063, March 31, 2014, 720 SCRA 230, 240-241.
Rollo, p. 90.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 212778
We have reviewed the rulings of the P ARAD, the DARAB, and the
CA on the original case determining petitioners' right over the property. We
fail to see in any of the bodies of each decision the extent of the amendment
made by the PARAD. The three (3) rulings uniformly dwelt on petitioners'
7
' CA rollo, pp. 96-97.
Decision 22 G.R. No. 212778
xxx
By contrast, the bodies of the three (3) rulings lacked the following:
( 1) discussion on the reasonable redemption price; (2) consignation by
petitioners of the redemption price at the time of the filing of the complaint,
not simply the amount of only P2,300.00; (3) liquidation and determination
of the useful expenses and improvements made on the lot by the respondent
Municipality as transferee-owner of the property; (4) validity of the tender of
payment made by petitioners; and (5) discussion on automatic transfer of
ownership and execution of a deed of conveyance.
Evidently and as previously pointed out, the rulings of the three (3)
tribunals did not delve into an adjudication of ownership over the property
since petitioners first had to validly redeem it. We cannot overemphasize
that the right of redemption, albeit a property right, is not an adjudication of
ownership.
74
Rollo, p. I 06. Underlining in the original.
75
SCRA547i
Art. 428: De Ieon v. Puh/ic !isl ales Aulhorily, G. R. No. 181970. Augusl 3, 20 I0, 626
Decision 23 G.R. No. 212778
77
Pascual v. Daquioag, supra note 71, at 240-242.
78
G.R. No. 171961, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 681.
79
DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL,
TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING
THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR.
80
Dela Cruz v. Quiazon, supra at 692-693.
81
Martillano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148277, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 195, 204.
82
Pagta/unan v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 252, 259.
8
' Perez v. Aquino, supra note 48, at 588-589.
I.I\/
84
Estrella v. Francisco, supra note 50.
85
Perez v. Aquino, supra at 589.
"'' G.R. No. 118599, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 249'/
Decision 24 G.R. No. 212778
In this regard, we agree with the CA's ruling that petitioners belatedly
tendered payment and effected consignation of the redemption price of Pl .2
million. Notably, petitioners filed on August 26, 1994 a Motion for
Consignation of Reasonable Redemption Amount of only P2,300.00 for the
2, 132.42 square meters landholding sold by Jesus to respondent
Municipality. 88 The discrepancy between the amounts of P2,300.00 and Pl .2
Million clearly calls to question petitioners' willingness and ability to pay.
87
Id. at 257.
88
Rollo, p. 85.
wi Id. at 68.
Decision 25 G.R. No. 212778
4. Indeed, the lots surrounding the original Santos prope1iy have been
classified as commercial since 1989. The respondent Municipality has
consistently asserted that the actual amount it expended on the construction
90
Perez v. Aquino, supra note 48, at 590-591.
91
Estrella v. Francisco, supra note 50.
92
PIanters DeveIopment Bank v. Garcw,
. G.R. No. 147081, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 185, 195.
93
Estrella v. Francisco, supra.
94
Our holding that the property has been devoted to public use and
cannot be appropriated and possessed by petitioners is unavoidable. The
reclassification and public use of the property were recognized in the
PARAD's original ruling in DARAB Case No. 739-Bulacan '94, quoting
respondent Municipality's arguments in its Answer:
That since the year 1989 when our first public market
was constructed in the Poblacion from the CDF of
Congressman Vicente Rivera, the lots surrounding it,
including the property of the heirs of Simeon delos Santos,
became a commercial area, thus, the increase in valuation
of said lots;
0
Decision 27 G.R. No. 212778
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBIT~O J. VELASCO
As8f.ci~1te Justice
Chairperson
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
~/
~~s~cia~~~~~
ATTESTATION
CERTIFICATION
T fl -i n~ f} i 'l'i s i on
MAY 2 6 20\7