REMEDIAL LAW DRAFT No.

: 1
Rani Mae Aberin

SIMEONA PRESCILLA, et. al. v. CONRADO LASQUITE and JUANITO ANDRADE

G.R. No. 205805, 25 September 2019, SECOND DIVISION, (Caguioa, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Sec. 4, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal: the pendency of a
motion for reconsideration filed on time and by a proper party shall stay the execution of
the judgment of final resolution sought to be reconsidered.

It is elementary that a judgment of a court is conclusive and binding only upon

the parties and their successors-in-interest after the commencement of the action in
court. A decision rendered on complain in a civil action or proceeding does not bind or
prejudice a person not impleaded therein, for no person shall be adversely affected by
the outcome of a civil action or proceeding in which he is not a party.

There is nothing in the Rules of Court that mandates, or even allows, the
appellate courts to suspend the resolution of a party’s motion for reconsideration on
account of a co-party’s appeal before the Court. Otherwise stated, when the trial court
or appellate court issues a judgment or final resolution in a case involving several
parties, the right of one party to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal is not hinged
on the motion for reconsideration or appeal of the other party.

FACTS:

In a complaint, Prescilla, et. al. claimed to be the owners of two parcels of land
(Lot 3050 and 3052) located in San Mateo. According to them, they have been in
possession in conception de dueno of the said properties since 1940. However, it was
alleged that Laquite and Andrade were able to fraudulently obtain the original certificate
of titles (OCTs) covering the subject properties.

A second complaint in Intervention for Annulment and Cancellation of Title was

filed by the Manahans against the respondents. On their part, the Manahans asserted
title over the property as successors of Jose Manahan.

While the trial was ongoing, Victory Hills intervened, claiming to be the owner of
the subject property.

The Regional Trial Court upheld Prescilla’s right of ownership over Lot No. 3052,
while also upholding the Lasquite and Andrade’s rights of ownership over the subject
property. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the trial court’s decision and
declared Victory Hills the owner of the subject property.

Feeling aggrieved, Prescilla et. al. filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Lasquite
and Andrade resorted to a different remedy and decided to directly file a Petition for
Review on Certiorari.

Upon the knowledge of the CA of the respondent’s appeal, the appellate court
issued a resolution, which suspended the proceedings and the resolution of petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration until the appeal has been resolved.

The CA, in the appeal, held that the CA (8 th Division) erroneously declared
Victory Hills as the absolute owner of the property. The CA’s decision became final and
executory.

Lasquite and Andrade filed a Motion for Execution before the RTC. The trial court
granted the said motion and issued a Writ of Execution. Hence, Prescilla, et. al. filed a
Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA (7 th Division), alleging that the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Writ of Execution.

The CA (7th Division) found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion when it granted the Motion of Execution in view of the finality of the decision
declaring respondents as the rightful owner of the subject property.
ISSUES:

1. Whether the RTC commited grave abuse of discretion in issuing a Writ of Execution
2. Whether the Decision of the CA (7th Division) is already final and binding

RULING:

1. YES. The RTC gravely abused its discretion. To recall, when the CA (8 th Division)
issued its decision in favor of Victory Hills and against Prescilla, et. al., the latter
timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

It is not disputed that petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is still pending

before the CA (8th Division) and has not been resolved as of date. In the assailed
Decision, the CA (7th Division) itself recognized that the resolution of petitioners’ Motion
for Reconsideration is still suspended and has not yet been resolved.

Sec. 4, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal: the pendency of a
motion for reconsideration filed on time and by a proper party shall stay the execution of
the judgment of final resolution sought to be reconsidered.

Therefore, as to petitioners Prescilla, et. al., whose Motion for Reconsideration is

still pending before the CA (8 th Division), it must be stressed that the controversy has
not been resolved with finality. Consequently, as far as the petitioners are concerned,
there is no judgment that is already ripe for execution.

2. NO. Consequently, as far as the petitioners are concerned, there is no judgment that
is already ripe for execution. It is elementary that a judgment of a court is conclusive
and binding only upon the parties and their successors-in-interest after the
commencement of the action in court. A decision rendered on complain in a civil
action or proceeding does not bind or prejudice a person not impleaded therein, for
no person shall be adversely affected by the outcome of a civil action or proceeding
in which he is not a party.
 In the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the respondents, only the Lasquite
and Andrade as well as Victory Hills were parties involved. Petitioners Prescilla, et. al.
were not impleaded parties to the said case.

The CA (7th Division) argued that the decision concerning the ownership over the
subject property was already settled. However, the sole issued resolved by the
appellate court was only the validity of Victory Hill’s claim of ownership and not the
petitioners Prescilla, et. al.’s and nothing more.

On a final note, the Court notes that this complication originated from the CA (8 th
Division) act of suspending the resolution of the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
There is nothing in the Rules of Court that mandates, or even allows, the appellate
courts to suspend the resolution of a party’s motion for reconsideration on account of a
co-party’s appeal before the Court. Otherwise stated, when the trial court or appellate
court issues a judgment or final resolution in a case involving several parties, the right of
one party to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal is not hinged on the motion for
reconsideration or appeal of the other party. Effectively, by failing to resolve their Motion
for Reconsideration, petitioners were prevented from exercising their right to appeal.
Subjecting petitioners Prescilla, et. al. to a judgment that they had no opportunity to
appeal from due to no fault on their own smacks of violation of due process.