GR
No. 121165
Se ptem ber 26, 2006
HON. DOMINADO DOMINADOR R F. CARILLO, CARILLO, Presidin Presiding g Judge, Judge, R.T.C R.T.C.. I!1" Digos, D#$#o de% &ur, 'ONIFACIO J. G()OT,C%er* o+ Cour #nd Pro$in-i Pro$in-i#% #% &er &eri++ i++ o+ D#$#o D#$#o de% &ur &ur,AL ,ALFR/D FR/DO O C. &/NO) &/NO), De0u De0u Pro Pro$. & &er eri+ i+++ #ssi #ssign gned ed o R.T R.T.C. I!1 I!1" " Digo Digos, s, D#$# D#$#o o de de%% &u &urr, MARCO& D. RI&ONAR, JR., Regisr#r o+ Deeds o+ D#$#o de% &ur, #nd MARIA GON2AL/&, Petitioners, 3s.
HON. CO(RT OF APP/AL&, MARIA PA2 DA'ON #nd RO&ALINA DA'ON, Respondents 4(I&(M'ING5 FACT& Gonzales
plaint (action for s pe pecif ic filed a com pl performance) performance) against Spouses Manio seek ing eecution of deed of sale of propert! s"e boug"t from Pr iscilla illa Man anio io## Gonzales said s"e s"e paid paid do$n do$npa pa!m !men entt to Prisc Priscill illa a becaus from "er "er son because e s"e "ad an SP% from %r istotle, t"e o$ner of t"e land# &' r uled in faor of Gonzales# Gonzales de posited t"e $it" t"e cou or eecution, court rt and and filed filed motion ffo ba balance $it" $as not $"ic" $as $it"d $it"dra$ ra$n n because because t"e decision sered on de def end nda ants# &"e S"eriff finall! sered a cop! at an ungodl! "our of 2 midnig"t# &'*s decision becam became e final and eecutor !# &"e +abons, claiming to "ae boug"t t"e l and from for annul %r istotle, filed before t"e '% a pe petition fo nnulment of udg udgment and orders of t"e &'# &"e! alle lleged t"at t"e lack of urisdictio urisdiction n oer t"eir decision $as oid for la eal pa persons persons as t"e r eal in inter est# '% issued par ties r esolution r estr aining &' from im pl plementing its decision# -ence, t"is pe petition b! Gonzales# I&&(/6
."et"er or not t"ere $as ba basis to annul nnul t"e decision of t"e &rial 'ourt#
H/LD6 /0S,
t"ere $as basis to annul t"e +ecision of t"e &rial
'ourt# %n action s"ould be broug"t against t"e r eal part! &"e r eal part! in inter est is t"e one $"o in inter est# $ould be benef ited or in ur ed b! t"e udgment or is t"e one entitled to t"e aails of t"e suit# 1amed petitioner s "er ein are 'arillo (Pr esiding 2udge), of Gu!ot ('lerk 'ourt), Seno! (+e put! S"eriff), Risonar (R egistr ar of +eeds), and Gonzales# 'arillo, Gu!ot, Seno! and Risonar are not inter ested par ties because t"e! $ould not benef it from t"e 3nl! Gonzales r emains as aff ir matie r elief s soug"t# genuine par t!4 petitioner in t"is case#
insists t"at t"e +abons "ae no r ig"t to seek annulment of t"e &'*s udgment because t"e! ar e not 5ut t"e par ties to t"e s pecif ic performance case# +abons insist t"at t"e! are par ties in inter est because t"e! are bu!ers, o$ners and possessors of t"e contested land# Gonzales
s pecif ic &"e performance case broug"t b! Gonzales to t"e &' named Priscilla and Manio -o$eer, t"e lot is o$ned b! "usband as def endants# %r istotle, t"eir son# Priscilla "ad no inter est on t"e lot and can "ae no in ter est in t"e udgment of t"e &'# 6ailure to im plead %r istotle Manio renders t"e proceedings in t"e s pecif ic performance case null and oid# Petition
is denied#
7H/R/FOR/, t"e petition is D/NI/D for lack of merit# &"e assailed +ecision dated ebruar! 22, )778 of t"e 'ourt of %ppeals in '%4 G#R# SP 1o# 296:;, is AFFIRM/D# 'osts against petitioner Maria Gonzales#
