The Supreme Court held that a writ of execution cannot be issued against parties whose motion for reconsideration is still pending before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA erred in believing that the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 175375, which involved a different party, was binding on the petitioners, who were not parties in that case and whose motion for reconsideration was unresolved. This ruling underscores the importance of due process and the right to appeal in land disputes.

Unresolved Appeals: When Can a Land Ownership Ruling Be Enforced?

This case revolves around a protracted dispute over land ownership, specifically concerning Lot No. 3050 in San Mateo, Rizal. The petitioners, Simeona Prescilla, Gloria Prescilla, et al., claimed ownership based on their long-term possession and cultivation since 1940. However, respondents Conrado Lasquite and Juanito Andrade obtained Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) for the same property, leading to a legal battle that spanned decades and multiple appeals.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Lasquite and Andrade regarding Lot No. 3050. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), Eighth Division, reversed the RTC’s decision and declared Victory Hills, Inc. as the absolute owner of the land. The Prescillas filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, Lasquite and Andrade directly filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 175375.

The CA then suspended the resolution of the Prescillas’ Motion for Reconsideration pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Eventually, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision in G.R. No. 175375, reinstating the RTC’s ruling in favor of Lasquite and Andrade, but the Prescillas were not parties in the appeal before the Supreme Court. Following this, Lasquite and Andrade sought a writ of execution from the RTC, which was granted. The Prescillas challenged this through a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that their Motion for Reconsideration was still pending before the CA.

The heart of the Supreme Court’s decision lies in the principle of due process and the effect of a pending Motion for Reconsideration. The Court emphasized that a judgment is conclusive only upon the parties involved and their successors-in-interest. The Court cited Guy v. Atty. Gacott:

A decision rendered on a complaint 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. The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he has not been made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.

The Supreme Court also referred to Section 4, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court:

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

The Court found that the CA, Seventh Division, erred in upholding the writ of execution against the Prescillas because their Motion for Reconsideration was still pending before the CA, Eighth Division. The Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 175375 only addressed the rights of Victory Hills, Inc. and did not resolve the ownership claims between the Prescillas and Lasquite and Andrade. Because the Prescillas were not parties to G.R. No. 175375, the ruling in that case could not bind them.

The Court clarified that the doctrine established in Suson v. Court of Appeals did not apply. In Suson, a party was bound by a judgment even though they were not impleaded because they had the opportunity to intervene but failed to do so. However, the Prescillas’ situation was different; their Motion for Reconsideration was pending, and therefore, any attempt to intervene in G.R. No. 175375 would have been considered forum shopping.

The Supreme Court also criticized the CA, Eighth Division, for suspending the resolution of the Prescillas’ Motion for Reconsideration pending the outcome of G.R. No. 175375. The Court underscored that this action effectively prevented the Prescillas from exercising their right to appeal, leading to a denial of due process. The delay caused by the unresolved Motion for Reconsideration frustrated the objective of the rules of procedure, which is to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of cases.

The implications of this decision are significant. It reinforces the principle that a pending Motion for Reconsideration suspends the execution of a judgment against the party who filed the motion. Moreover, it emphasizes that a decision of the Supreme Court only binds the parties involved in that particular case and does not prejudice the rights of other claimants who were not part of the proceedings. This ensures that all parties have a fair opportunity to litigate their claims fully and to exercise their right to appeal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a writ of execution could be issued against parties whose Motion for Reconsideration was still pending before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court determined that it could not.
Who were the parties involved?	The petitioners were the Prescilla family, who claimed ownership of the land based on long-term possession. The respondents were Lasquite and Andrade, who obtained Original Certificates of Title for the same property.
What was the significance of the Motion for Reconsideration?	The pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Prescillas had the effect of suspending the execution of the judgment against them, as per Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. This meant that the ruling was not yet final and could not be enforced against them.
Why was the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 175375 not binding on the Prescillas?	The Prescillas were not parties to the case in G.R. No. 175375; that case was between Lasquite and Andrade and Victory Hills, Inc. As such, the ruling in that case could not affect the rights of the Prescillas, who had not had an opportunity to present their case before the Supreme Court.
What did the Court say about the CA’s decision to suspend the Prescillas’ Motion for Reconsideration?	The Supreme Court criticized the Court of Appeals for suspending the resolution of the Prescillas’ Motion for Reconsideration, deeming that this action effectively prevented the Prescillas from exercising their right to appeal, leading to a denial of due process.
What is the principle of due process in this context?	Due process requires that all parties have a fair opportunity to litigate their claims fully and to exercise their right to appeal. In this case, the Prescillas were denied due process because the CA suspended the resolution of their Motion for Reconsideration.
What is the doctrine established in Suson v. Court of Appeals, and why was it inapplicable here?	In Suson v. Court of Appeals, a party was bound by a judgment even though they were not impleaded because they had the opportunity to intervene but failed to do so. Here, the Prescillas could not intervene in G.R. No. 175375 because their Motion for Reconsideration was pending.
What was the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and vacated the orders of the Regional Trial Court, which had granted the writ of execution against the Prescillas. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution of the pending Motion for Reconsideration.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules and safeguarding the right to due process in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that a judgment can only be enforced against parties who have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims. The failure to resolve a pending Motion for Reconsideration can have significant implications, potentially leading to a denial of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SIMEONA, GLORIA AND RODOLFO (ALL SURNAMED PRESCILLA) v. CONRADO O. LASQUITE, G.R. No. 205805, September 25, 2019