TERESA C. AGUILAR v. MICHAEL J.

O'PALLICK
G.R. No. 182280; July 29, 2013

Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution (due process)

FACTS
 On March 20, 1995, a Contract To Sell was executed between Primetown Property Group, Inc.
(PPGI) on the one hand, and Reynaldo Poblete and Tomas Villanueva on the other, over Unit
3301 of the Makati Prime Citadel Condominium in Makati City. Poblete and Villanueva in turn
executed in favor of respondent Michael J. O’Pallick a Deed of Assignment covering the unit. In
October 1995, PPGI issued a Deed of Sale in favor of O’Pallick after the latter paid the purchase
price in full. Although O’Pallick took possession of the unit, the Deed of Sale in his favor was
never registered nor annotated on the Condominium Certificate of Title.

 Meanwhile, in a case between PPGI and petitioner Teresa C. Aguilar  filed in the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), Aguilar was able to obtain a final and executory Decision in
her favor, and as a result, Sheriff Cesar D. Raagas of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
caused several properties of PPGI to be levied, including the herein subject condominium unit.
Raagas conducted the public auction sale on March 30, 2000, where Aguilar was declared the
highest bidder for the subject unit. A certificate of sale was issued in her favor.

 Because PPGI failed to redeem the property, a final Deed of Sale was issued in favor of Aguilar
on April 20, 2001. Aguilar moved for the issuance of a Writ of Possession, and in a December 21,
2001 Order, the HLURB granted the motion.

 On April 6, 2001, O’Pallick instituted a case with the RTC Makati for quieting of title and to set
aside the levy on execution of the subject unit, to annul the certificate of sale issued in favor of
Aguilar, as well as to recover the unit. He argued that he must be given the opportunity to be
heard, since he was not impleaded in the HLURB case where his claim over the subject unit
could have been litigated.

 Petitioners sought the dismissal of the case.

 On December 8, 2003, the trial court issued the assailed Order dismissing the case and held that
it had no jurisdiction to annul the levy and sale on execution ordered by the HLURB, an agency
under the Office of the President. The trial court concluded that because the Office of the
President is a co-equal body, it had no power to interfere with the latter’s decisions nor could it
issue injunctive relief to enjoin the execution of decisions of any of its administrative agencies; the
case for quieting of title or reconveyance constitutes such prohibited interference.
 The CA ruled in favor of O’Pallic and held that since he was not a party to the HLURB case, he
could not be bound by its disposition as well as the incidents and actions taken therein; thus, he
had the right to file a separate action to protect and vindicate his claim. It held that since the
execution sale proceeded despite O’Pallick’s third-party claim.

ISSUES
1. WON O’Pallick should be bound by the case between PPGI and Aguilar in the HLURB

RULING

Petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals allowing O’Pallick to file a separate action to
protect and vindicate his claim over the subject condominium unit is AFFIRMED.

 "The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding
in which he was not made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of
law." Thus, since respondent was not impleaded in the HLURB case, he could not be bound by
the decision rendered therein. Because he was not impleaded in said case; he was not given the
opportunity to present his case therein. But, more than the fact that O’Pallick was not impleaded
in the HLURB case, he had the right to vindicate his claim in a separate action, as in this case. As
a prior purchaser of the very same condominium unit, he had the right to be heard on his claim.