SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 123698. August 5, 1998.]

ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION , petitioner, vs .

COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. LILIA SEVILLA and JOSE SEELIN ,
respondents.

Ruperto G. Martin and Donardo R. Paglinawan for petitioner.

Jose V. Marcella for private respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner is the transferee of a lot subject of a complaint for quieting of title and
declaration of nullity between private respondents and Central Dyeing and Finishing
Corporation. A notice of lis pendens was annotated on Petitioner's title. Judgment was
rendered in favor of private respondents. It was a rmed by both the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court. When a writ of possession/break open order was issued by the trial
court, petitioner opposed the same contending that it was a buyer in good faith and not
impleaded as party. The motion, however, was granted. Petitioner went to the Court of
Appeals in a petition for certiorari which rendered judgment dismissing the petition as well
as its subsequent motion for reconsideration. Its appeal to this Court was denied and
attained nality. When an alias writ of execution was issued subsequently by the court,
petitioner again led a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals arguing among
others that it was not a party to the case, that the decision of the trial court in said case
never mandated Central Dyeing to deliver possession of the property to the private
respondents; and that private respondent's title is being questioned in another case. The
Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on ground of nality of judgment of the lower
court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, again this recourse by
petitioner. In the meantime the alias writ of possession and alias writ of execution was
duly implemented by the Sheriff. cSITDa

Once a court renders a nal judgment, all the issues between or among the parties
are deemed resolved and its judicial functions with respect to any matter related to the
controversy litigated come to an end.
Placing private respondents in possession of the land in question is the necessary
and logical effect or consequence of the decision in Civil Case No. C-9297 declaring them
as the rightful owners of the property. As correctly argued by the private respondents, they
do not have to institute another action for the purpose of taking possession of the subject
realty.
The pendency of Civil Case No. C-11337 for annulment of titles led by the Republic
against private respondents will not justify the suspension of the execution of the
judgment in Civil Case No. C-9297. This is so because the petitioner's title which originated
from Central Dyeing (TCT No. 205942) was already annulled in the judgment sought to be
executed, and which judgment had long been a rmed by the Court of Appeals and by this
Court. Thus, even if, in the remote possibility, the trial court will nullify the said private
respondents' title in Civil Case No. C-11337, as argued by petitioner, the supposed adverse
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 decision cannot validate TCT No. 205942 and make petitioner the rightful owner of the
subject land. Clearly, the present petition was instituted merely to delay the execution of
the judgment.
Be that as it may, the petition has been rendered moot and academic in view of the
fact that the questioned Alias Writ of Possession dated December 27, 1994 and the Alias
Writ of Execution dated December 27, 1994 have already been implemented by the Sheriff
as shown by the "Sheriff's Return," dated March 31, 1995, with the attached "Turn Over
Premises" indicating therein that private respondents took possession of the subject
property. aCHDST

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; IN A FINAL JUDGMENT, ALL

ISSUES ARE DEEMED RESOLVED. — It is a settled rule that once a court renders a nal
judgment, all the issues between or among the parties before it are deemed resolved and
its judicial functions with respect to any matter related to the controversy litigated come
to an end.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALL NECESSARY AND LOGICAL EFFECTS OR CONSEQUENCES
INCLUDED THEREIN. — Placing private respondents in possession of the land in question
is the necessary and logical effect or consequence of the decision in Civil Case No. C-9297
declaring them as the rightful owners of the property. As correctly argued by the private
respondents, they do not have to institute another action for the purpose of taking
possession of the subject realty. SEAHID

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY PENDENCY OF ANOTHER ACTION FOR

ANNULMENT OF TITLES BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC AND PREDECESSOR. — The pendency
of Civil Case No. C-11337 for annulment of titles led by the Republic against private
respondents will not justify the suspension of the execution of the judgment in Civil Case
No. C-9297. This is so because the petitioner's title which originated from Central Dyeing
(TCT No. 205942) was already annulled in the judgment sought to be executed, and which
judgment had long been a rmed by the Court of Appeals and by this Court. Thus, even if,
in the remote possibility, the trial court will nullify the said private respondents' title in Civil
Case No. C-11337, as argued by petitioner, the supposed adverse decision cannot validate
TCT No. 205942 and make petitioner the rightful owner of the subject land. Clearly, the
present petition was instituted merely to delay the execution of the judgment.
4. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; PETITION RENDERED MOOT AND
ACADEMIC WHERE WRIT OF EXECUTION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. — Be that as it may,
the petition has been rendered moot and academic in view of the fact that the questioned
Alias Writ of Possession dated December 27, 1994 and the Alias Writ of Execution dated
December 27, 1994 have already been implemented by the Sheriff as shown by the
"Sheriff's Return," dated March 31, 1995, with the attached "Turn Over Premises" indicating
therein that private respondents took possession of the subject property.
5. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; BOUND TO EXERT EVERY EFFORT TO ASSIST IN
SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. — While lawyers owe entire
devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they
should not forget that they are o cers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in
the speedy and e cient administration of justice . They should not, therefore, misuse the
rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. ISEHTa

DECISION

MARTINEZ , A.M. , J : p

This is the second time petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation has
come to this Court assailing the execution of the judgment dated August 24, 1989,
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-9297. Apparently,
hope springs eternal for petitioner, considering that the issues raised in this second
petition for review are but mere reiterations of previously settled issues which have
already attained nality. We now write nis to this controversy which has dragged on for
seventeen (17) years, for as we ruled in Gomez vs. Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 15, Ozamis
City: 1
". . . litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, it being
essential to the effective administration of justice that once a judgment has
become nal, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the
fruits of the verdict. Hence, courts must guard themselves against any scheme to
bring about that result, for constituted as they are to put an end to controversies,
they should frown upon any attempt to prolong it. Public policy and sound
practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should
become nal and irrevocable at some de nite date xed by law. Interes rei
publicae ut finis sit litium."
The facts:
The case started on May 18, 1981 when private respondent-spouses Jose Seelin
and Lilia Sevilla Seelin led a complaint against Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation
(Central Dyeing for brevity) for quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer
Certi cate of Title (TCT No. 205942) issued in the name of said corporation, docketed as
Civil Case No. C-9297, before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. cdphil

On August 24, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment, 2 the dispositive portion of
which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
Declaring the defendant's Certificate of Title No. 205942 null and void.

Dismissing counterclaim of defendant without pronouncement as to

costs."

The aforesaid decision was affirmed 3 by respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV

No. 25989 on June 25, 1991 and eventually upheld by this Court in G.R. No. L-101819 on
November 25, 1991. Said dismissal became final on March 5, 1992. 4
The RTC decision, having become nal and executory, private respondents moved
for execution which was granted by the lower court. Accordingly, a writ of execution of the
decision was issued.
Subsequently, private respondents led an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for an
Immediate Writ of Possession/Break Open Order. The motion was opposed by herein
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation contending that it is not submitting
to the jurisdiction of the trial court; that it is completely unaware of the suit between
private respondents and Central Dyeing; that it is the true and registered owner of the lot
having bought the same from Central Dyeing; and that it was a buyer in good faith.
On July 1, 1992, the trial court granted private respondents' motion. Another Order
was issued on August 18, 1992 by the trial court holding that the judgment was binding on
petitioner, being the successor-in-interest of defendant Central Dyeing pursuant to Rule 39,
Section 48(b) of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari. On September 30,
1992 the Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the petition, excerpts of which
read:
"We reviewed carefully the assailed orders and nd no compelling reason
to disturb the same. Indeed, since petitioner admits that it bought the property
from Central Dyeing and Finishing Corporation, defendant in Civil Case No. C-
9297, petitioner is bound by the decision rendered therein by respondent Judge. cdtai

Under Section 20, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court, a transferee pendente lite
does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the
judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original
party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee." 5

The motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of Appeals on February
18, 1993. 6
On further appeal to this Court, petitioner's petition for review on certiorari,
docketed as G.R. No. 109076, was denied in a resolution dated August 2, 1993. 7 Upon
finality of said resolution, this Court issued Entry of Judgment dated October 21, 1993. 8
Thereafter, private respondents led another motion for the issuance of a second
writ of execution before the trial court which was granted in the Order of July 20, 1994.
Not willing to give up, petitioner sought a reconsideration. Petitioner's motion was
initially granted 9 on August 29, 1994 by the trial court thru Judge Arturo Romero. However,
upon motion of private respondents, the said order was reconsidered on December 19,
1994 1 0 by Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., who succeeded Judge Romero. Forthwith, alias
writs of execution were issued:
Desperately needing a favorable judgment, petitioner, for the second time, led a
petition for certiorari 1 1 with respondent Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
36591), arguing inter alia: that the judgment cannot be executed against it because it was
not a party to Civil Case No. C-9297; that the decision of the trial court in said case never
mandated Central Dyeing to deliver possession of the property to the private respondents;
that certain facts and circumstances which occurred after the nality of the judgment will
render the execution highly unjust, illegal and inequitable; that the issuance of the assailed
writ of execution violates the lot buyers' freedom of religion and worship; and that private
respondents' title is being questioned in another case.
On September 29, 1995, the respondent court rendered judgment 1 2 dismissing the
petition for certiorari on the ground that the lower court's decision in Civil Case No. 9297
had long become final and executory. It ruled, thus: Cdpr

"This Court needs (sic) not belabor the fact that the respondent Court's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 decision in Civil Case No. 9297 had long become nal and executory. The
respondent court's writs of execution and possession could have been
implemented a long time ago if not for the series of legal maneuvers of petitioner
Eternal Gardens. . . . Petitioner Eternal Gardens cannot anymore stop the
execution of a nal judgment by raising issues which actually have been ruled
upon by this Court in its earlier case with Us in CA-G.R. SP No. 28797. To Our
mind, the instant petition is a mere continuation of petitioner's dilatory tactics so
that plaintiffs, although prevailing party, will not bene t at all from a nal
judgment in their favor. Thus, the instant petition is obviously, frivolous and
dilatory warranting the assessment of double costs of this suit against petitioner
Sec. 3, Rule 142 of the Revised Rules of Court)
Moreover, as manifested by the plaintiffs, herein private respondents, the
instant petition has already become moot and academic as the property in
question was already turned over by the Deputy Sheriff to the plaintiffs, and the
writs of execution and possession fully satis ed . Thus, hopefully, putting the
legal battle of this case to rest." (Emphasis ours.)
The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on January 30, 1996. 1 3
Petitioner once again seeks this Court's intervention reiterating in essence the same
line of arguments espoused in their petition before the respondent Court of Appeals.
The petition must fail.
It is a settled rule that once a court renders a nal judgment, all the issues between
or among the parties before it are deemed resolved and its judicial functions with respect
to any matter related to the controversy litigated come to an end.
Petitioner's argument that the trial court cannot order it and the one hundred (100)
memorial lot owners to surrender and/or deliver possession of the property in dispute on
the ground that they were never parties to the case between private respondents and
Central Dyeing, has long been resolved by respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
28797 when it ruled:
"Indeed, since petitioner admits that it bought the property from Central
Dyeing and Finishing Corporation, defendant in Civil Case No. C-9297, petitioner is
bound by the decision rendered therein by respondent Judge.
"Under Section 20, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court, a transferee pendente lite
does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the
judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original
party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee." 1 4

The aforesaid decision was a rmed by this Court in G.R. No. 109076 and attained
nality on October 21, 1993. There is, therefore, no need for us to belabor the same issue
here.
Further, petitioner's contention that a determination of the issue of possession
should first be resolved before the issuance of a writ of possession is untenable.
Placing private respondents in possession of the land in question is the necessary
and logical effect or consequence of the decision in Civil Case No. C-9297 declaring them
as the rightful owners of the property. As correctly argued by the private respondents, they
do not have to institute another action for the purpose of taking possession of the subject
realty. LLpr

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioner likewise asserts that certain facts and circumstances transpired after the
nality of judgment in Civil Case No. C-9297 which will render the execution of the said
judgment unjust and illegal. It points to the pendency or Civil Case No. C-11337 before the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City led by the Republic of the Philippines against private
respondents for nulli cation of 22 titles which include the title to the subject property.
Petitioner argues that the pendency of the said case provides a reasonable justi cation
why execution of the aforesaid judgment and delivery of possession of the subject
property should be permanently stayed or at least held in abeyance until after the nal
resolution of the case.
We do not agree.
The pendency of Civil Case No. C-11337 for annulment of titles led by the Republic
against private respondents will not justify the suspension of the execution of the
judgment in Civil Case No. C-9297. This is so because the petitioner's title which originated
from Central Dyeing (TCT No. 205942) was already annulled in the judgment sought to be
executed, and which judgment had long been a rmed by the Court of Appeals and by this
Court. Thus, even if, in the remote possibility, the trial court will nullify the said private
respondents' title in Civil Case No. C-11337, as argued by petitioner, the supposed adverse
decision cannot validate TCT No. 205942 and make petitioner the rightful owner of the
subject land. Clearly, the present petition was instituted merely to delay the execution of
the judgment.
Finally, petitioner's fear that the grave lots will be disturbed, desecrated and
destroyed once the execution of the judgment proceeds is more imagined than real. A
perusal of the Orders of the trial court with regard to the execution of the judgment reveals
that the interests of said burial lot owners have been taken into account by the trial court
when it took steps and made suggestions as to how their rights could be amply protected.
In its Order dated February 13, 1995, the trial court, through Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr.,
stated:
"The defendant-petitioner are(sic) however not completely without recourse
or remedy because they can still go after the original party-defendant or transferor
of the property in question which is Central Dyeing and Finishing Corporation
pursuant to Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. And should it be di cult or
nay impossible for plaintiff-respondents to be placed in possession of the subject
property, due to defendant-petitioners' arguments that the same have already
been sold to burial lot buyers, then it should be incumbent for the defendant-
petitioners to negotiate with the plaintiff-respondents for payment in cash of the
property subject of their complaint to avoid demolition or desecration since they
benefited from the sale of the burial lots." 1 5

In another order dated May 4, 1995, the following directive was given, to wit: LLjur

"The court directs and orders the defendant to give access to the plaintiffs
and as proposed by the plaintiffs, they are given authority to destroy a small
portion of the fence so that they can have access to the property. But as to the
demolition of the burial lots, negotiation could be made by the defendant with the
former owner so that cash payment or cash settlement be made." 1 6

Even the former Presiding Judge Arturo A. Romero, in his Order dated July 20, 1994,
imposed the following limitation on the writ of execution, as follows:
"Moreover, considering the manifestation that large areas within the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Eternal Gardens have been sold to so many persons who now have buried their
beloved ones in the grave lots adjoining the lot in question, it is therefore, in the
interest of justice and equity, that the enforcement of the writ of possession and
break open order should be applied only to the gate of Eternal Gardens Memorial
Park at the eastern side nearest to the parcel of land in question where the factory
of the defendant is located, in order to avoid disturbing the peace of the resting
souls over the graves spread over the parcels of land within the said memorial
park." 1 7
From the above-mentioned orders, it can be seen that the issue as to the status of
the burial lot owners has been properly addressed.
Be that as it may, the petition has been rendered moot and academic in view of the
fact that the questioned Alias Writ of Possession dated December 27, 1994 and the Alias
Writ of Execution dated December 27, 1994 have already been implemented by the Sheriff
as shown by the "Sheriff's Return," 1 8 dated March 31, 1995, with the attached "Turn Over
Premises" 1 9 indicating therein that private respondents took possession of the subject
property.
A note of caution. This case has again delayed the execution of a nal judgment for
seventeen (17) years to the prejudice of the private respondents. In the meantime that
petitioner has thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot has long been going on, so
that by the time this case is nally terminated, the whole lot shall have already been lled
with tombstones, leaving nothing for private respondents, the real owners of the property.
This is a mockery of justice. cdrep

We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and
zeal in the defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are o cers of the
court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and e cient administration of
justice. They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of
justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes. 20 In Banogan et al. vs. Cerna, et al., 2 1 we ruled:
"As o cers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the
proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by ling
pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this
Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the
law should advise them when a case such as this, should not be permitted to be
led to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not
advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer
lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts."

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Melo, Puno and Mendoza, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. 249 SCRA 438-439; October 24, 1995.
2. Regional Trial Court Decision in Civil Case No. C-9297; Rollo, pp. 238-241.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 3. Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 25989; Rollo, pp. 242-248.
4. Entry of Judgment; Rollo, p. 100.

5. CA Decision penned by Justice Angelina S. Gutierrez and concurred in by Justice

Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. and Justice Jesus M. Elbinias; Rollo, pp. 249-256.

6. CA Resolution; Rollo, pp. 257-259.

7. Supreme Court Resolution:
"G.R. No. 109076 (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, et al.). Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the
petition for review on certiorari as well as the comment thereon of the private
respondents and the reply thereto of the petitioner, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the
petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed
reversible error in the questioned judgment."
8. See Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 36591; Rollo, p. 131.
9. Rollo, pp. 59-63.
10. RTC Order; portions of which are hereto quoted:
"After going over the above-cited pleadings, the Court is prone to reconsider its
order of August 29, 1994 for all matters and issues raised therein have already been
passed upon and aptly discussed by the honorable Court of Appeals and the
Honorable Supreme Court. The Court believes there is no change or intervening facts
changing the situation of the parties that would warrant an amendment or
modification of the subject judgment. This Court should not and cannot in effect
render null and nugatory the final and executory judgment of the Honorable Supreme
Court for that would be contemptuous and anomalous and may subject the presiding
judge of the trial court to the severest penalty for being disobedient and disrespectful
to the judgment or decision of the Honorable Supreme Court."
11. Rollo, pp. 28-57.
12. Penned by Justice Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros and concurred in by Justice Gloria C.
Paras and Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo; Rollo, pp. 131-134.
13. CA Resolution; Rollo, p. 139.
14. Rollo, p. 254.
15. RTC Order, Rollo, pp. 101-102.
16. Rollo, p. 159.
17. Ibid., p. 60.
18. Rollo, pp. 153-154,
19. Ibid, p. 155.
20. Gomez vs. Presiding Judge, 249 SCRA 432-433, October 24, 1995.
21. 154 SCRA 593, cited in Chua Huat et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 199 SCRA 15, July
9, 1991.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com