Orquiola v. Tandang Sora Devt. Corp 386 SCRA 201 (2002)
Facts: Petition for review seeking the reversal of the CA decision which dismissed the petition to prohibit Judge Vivencio Baclig of the RTC from issuing a writ of demolition against petitioners, and the sheriff and deputy sheriff from implementing an alias writ of execution. Pura Kalaw Ledesma was the registered owner of Lot 689 in Tandang Sora, Quezon City which is adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of the Piedad Estates, registered in the name of Herminigilda Pedro Herminigilda sold the lots to Mariano Lising, registered them in the name of M.B. Lising Realty and subdivided them into smaller lots. Petitioners, spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, purchased a portion of this Lot 707-A-2 In 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed Civil Case against Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly allegedl y encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of the action, Tandang Sora Development Corporation replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue of an assignment of Lot 689 Trial continued for three decades. On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged defendants Pedro and Lising jointly and severally liable for encroaching on plaintiff’s land and ordered to remove the house they constructed on the land they were occupying. On April 2, 1998, petitioners received a Special Order to remove, at their expense, all constructions, including barbed wires and fences, which defendants constructed on plaintiff’s property, within fifteen (15) days from notice otherwise, this Court will issue a writ of demolition against them. Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary injunction alleging that they bought the subject parcel of land in good faith and for value, hence, they were parties in interest. Since they were not impleaded in Civil Case, the writ of demolition issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced against them because to do so would amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. CA dismissed the petition as well as the motion for reconsideration, ruling that petitioners were considered privies who derived their rights from Lising by virtue of the sale and could be reached by the execution order in Civil Case.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the alias writ of execution may be enforced against petitioners. 2. Whether petitioners were innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith.
Ruling: 1. Petitioners submit that Medina Case*** is not controlling since Medina markedly differs from the present case on major points. Timing of acquisition of subject property – Medina acquired prior commencement and conclusion of case, while present case, petitioners acquired before the commencement of Civil Case Basis of Right over the disputed land of the predecessors-in-interest - In Medina based on Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado issued by the Spanish Government, while petitioners based on fully recognized Torrens title. In Medina merely relied on the title of her predecessor-in-interest and tax declarations to prove her alleged ownership of the land, while petitioners acquired the registered title in their own names, while the petitioner
In sale of a parcel of land under the Torrens system, person deal ing with the registered property need not go beyond the certificate of title as he can rely solely on the title and annotations on the title. 2. Buyer in good faith - buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property. Buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. Determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue which generally is outside the province of this except if CA failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. CA failed to consider that petitioners purchased the subject land in 1964 from Mariano Lising and the civil case commenced sometime in 1969. Petitioners could reasonably rely on Mariano Lisings Certificate of Title which at the time of purchase was still free from any third party claim. Hence, petitioners are buyers in good faith and for value. Builder in good faith - one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title. Petitioner spouses acquired the land without knowledge of any defect in the title of Mariano Lising. It was only in 1998, when the sheriff of Quezon City tried to execute the judgment in Civil Case which
cannot serve as notice of such adverse claim to petitioners since they were not impleaded therein as parties. Petitioners have rights over the subject property and hence they are proper parties in interest in any case, hence they should have been impleaded in civil case. Failure to implead proper parties in interest, they cannot be reached by decision as no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment. Demolition of their house on their own titled lot tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Petition granted. Medina
