12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.

com/search/print/12847

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 affirmed 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 finality. When an alias writ of execution was issued subsequently by the
court, petitioner again filed 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 finality 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 final 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 filed 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
www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 1/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

No. 205942) was already annulled in the judgment sought to be executed, and which judgment had
long been affirmed 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.

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 final 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 filed 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 affirmed 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.

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 2/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

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 officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
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. 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 finality. We now write finis 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 final, 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 final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed 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 filed a complaint against Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation (Central Dyeing for
brevity) for quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate 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. cd p h il

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."

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 3/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

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 final 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 filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for an Immediate Writ
of Possession/Break Open Order. The motion was opposed by herein 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 find 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 filed 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 10 by Judge Emilio L.
Leachon, Jr., who succeeded Judge Romero. Forthwith, alias writs of execution were issued:

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 4/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

Desperately needing a favorable judgment, petitioner, for the second time, filed a petition for
certiorari 11 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 finality 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 12 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: Cd pr

"This Court needs (sic) not belabor the fact that the respondent Court's decision in Civil Case
No. 9297 had long become final 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 final 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 benefit at all from a final 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 satisfied. Thus, hopefully, putting the legal battle of this case to rest."
(Emphasis ours.)

The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on January 30, 1996. 13

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 final 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

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 5/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

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." 14

The aforesaid decision was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 109076 and attained finality 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. LLp r

Petitioner likewise asserts that certain facts and circumstances transpired after the finality 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 filed by the Republic of the Philippines against private respondents for nullification
of 22 titles which include the title to the subject property. Petitioner argues that the pendency of
the said case provides a reasonable justification 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 final resolution of the case.

We do not agree.

The pendency of Civil Case No. C-11337 for annulment of titles filed 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 affirmed 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:

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 6/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

"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 difficult 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." 15

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." 16

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 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." 17

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," 18 dated March 31, 1995, with the attached "Turn Over Premises" 19 indicating therein that
private respondents took possession of the subject property.

A note of caution. This case has again delayed the execution of a final 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
finally terminated, the whole lot shall have already been filled with tombstones, leaving nothing for
private respondents, the real owners of the property. This is a mockery of justice. cdrep

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 7/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

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 officers of the court, bound to
exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient 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., 21 we ruled:

"As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of
justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing 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 filed 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.

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:

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 8/9
12/1/13 www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847

"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.

© 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Click here for our Disclaimer and Copyright Notice

www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/12847 9/9