G.R. No. 215933
G.R. No. 215933
SECOND DIVISION
Promulgated:
MAUNLAD HOMES, INC. ,
Respondent. 0 8. ~EB
x---------------------------------------
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Respondent Maunlad Homes, Inc. filed with the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC), Malolos City, Bulacan, an unlawful detainer case with
damages against National Power Corporation (NPC), raffled-off to Branch 1.
After trial, the MTCC issued its Decision3 dated October 26, 2009, ordering
NPC to vacate the subject premises and surrender physical possession
Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2416 dated January 4, 2017.
Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso
and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 37-48.
2
Id at 50-51.
3
Per Judge Mario B. Capellan.
o<I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 215933
The NPC appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Malolos City, Bulacan, and was raffled-off to Branch 78. The RTC rendered
its Decision4 dated May 18, 2010 affirming in toto the MTCC decision.
4
Per Judge Gregorio S. Sampaga, Civil Case No. 2 l-M-2010; rollo, pp. 64-69.
Id at 70-72.
c7Y
Id. at 73.
Id. at 74-76.
Id. at 77-78.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 215933
transformer radiator fins, one (1) unit power transformer with Serial No.
77740395, and four (4) pieces angle bars.
/f
9
Id. at 78.
lO
Id. at 187-189.
ll
Id. at 82-90.
12
Id. at 93.
l3
Id. at 147-153.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 215933
On July 30, 2012, the CA issued its assailed Decision dismissing the
petition for certiorari for being an incorrect remedy.
I
THE CA, IN DISMISSING PSALM'S PETITION ON
PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, OVERLOOKED PSALM'S PREVIOUSLY
FILED THIRD PARTY CLAIM.
II
PSALM OWNS THE PROPERTIES SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE ORDERS OF JUDGE SAMPAGA ISSUED AND THE
PROCESSES SHERIFF ESGUERRA ISSUED.
14
15
Id. at 153.
Id at 154-1 5 5. tf
Decision 5 G.R. No. 215933
III
THE JUDGMENT OBLIGATION IS NOT AMONG THE
OBLIGATIONS PSALM ASSUMED.
IV
PSALM WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE IN WHICH THE
DECISION THEREIN IS THE SUBJECT OF THE EXECUTION
PROCEEDINGS. 16
Petitioner claims that the CA erred in overlooking the fact that it filed
a third party claim as provided under Section 16 of Rule 39 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner contends that the CA should have taken
consideration of the substantive issues raised in its petition reiterating its
ownership of the levied properties. It claims that upon the effectivity of the
EPIRA law on June 26, 2001, the ownership of all existing generation assets,
IPP contracts, real estate and all other disposable assets of NPC were
transferred to it; and that all existing liabilities and outstanding financial
obligations of NPC as of June 26, 200 I arising from loans, issuance of
bonds, securities and other instrument of indebtedness were then and there
likewise legally transferred and assumed by it. However, since respondent's
claim is not among those existing obligations that were transferred to it upon
the effectivity of the EPIRA law, it cannot be held liable for the claim even if
it were made a party in the case. It contends that there is sufficient ground to
annul the levy and sale made by the sheriff since it is not a party in the case,
and therefore, not bound by the judgment rendered.
16
Id.at 17.
17
Villasi v. Garcia, G.R. No. 190106, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 629.
18
19 Id. ~8.,#
Id., dting Co,purn Poscuo, A.M. No. P-11-2972, Septom!= 28, 20 II, 658 SCRA 239, 24t; /
Decision 6 G.R. No. 215933
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or
keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person
from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent
the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate
action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly
spurious claim.
20
Naguit v. CA. G.R. No. 137675, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 60.
#'
Decision 7 G.R. No. 215933
execution has issued, such proper action should be a totally separate and
21
distinct action from the former suit.
xxx
21
Id., citing Estonina v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 111547, January 27, 1997, 266 SCRA 627;
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80063, January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA
159; Sy v. Discaya, G.R. No. 86301, January 23, 1990, 181 SCRA 378; Ong v. Tating, G.R. No. 61042,
April 15, 1987, 149 SCRA265.
c;;I"
Decision 8 G.R. No. 215933
NPC and PSALM shall take such measures and execute such
documents to effect the transfer of ownership and possession of all assets,
rights and privileges, liabilities required by the Act to be transferred by
NPC to PSALM.
22
23
Rollo, pp. 150-152.
G.R. No. 86301, January 23, 1990, 181SCRA378.
(//
Decision 9 G.R. No. 215933
However, if the claimant's proofs do not persuade the court of the validity
of his title or right of possession thereto, the claim will be denied. 24
Since the RTC denied the third-party claim for failure of petitioner to
satisfactorily establish its claim of ownership over the subject properties, the
latter filed with the CA a petition for certiorari assailing such denial and
claimed that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. The petition for certiorari was dismissed by the CA for being
a wrong remedy.
24
Id. at 382-383.
Conti v. CA, G.R. No. 134441, May 19, 1999, 307 SCRA486, 495, citing Silvestre vs. Torre~
25
27
In Queblar v. Garduno, we declared:
~
26
Solidum v. CA, G.R. No. 161647, June 22, 2006, 492 SCRA 261.
27
67 Phil. 316 (1939).
28
Section 16, Rule 39.
29
Queblar v. Garduno, supra note 26, at 319-320.
30
Id at 26.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 215933
against the sheriff to be brought within 120 days from the filing of the
bond, and a separate and independent action to vindicate his claim to the
property. In the case at bar, petitioner's and intervenor's remedy against the
bond proved to be unavailing because of the disputed order of the
respondent Judge canceling the indemnity bond. Such an order as well as
the order denying a motion to reconsider the same in effect discarded or
quashed the third-party claims. What then would the remedy be of the
third-party claimants?
In the recent case of Serra vs. Rodriguez, xxx this Court (First
Division), thru Mr. Justice Makasiar, ruled:
In Lara vs. Bayona, L-7920, May 10, 1955, this Court, thru Mr.
Justice Concepcion, later Chief Justice, in denying the petition for
certiorari to set aside the order of the lower court quashing the third-party
claim of a chattel mortgagee, held:
The Court further held that since the third-party claimant is not one
of the parties to the action, he could not, strictly speaking, appeal from the
order denying its claim, but should file a separate reinvidicatory action
against the execution creditor or a complaint for damages against the bond
filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. The rights of a third-
party claimant should be decided in a separate action to be instituted by
the third person. In fine, the appeal that should be interposed, if the term
appeal may be properly employed, is a separate reinvidicatory action
against the execution creditor or complaint for damages to be charged
against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. 31
And in such separate action, the court may issue a writ of preliminary
injunction against the sheriff enjoining him from proceeding with the
execution sale, 32 which is a speedy and adequate remedy to immediately
3I
Solidum v. CA, supra. at 270-27 I.
32
Ong v. Tating, G.R. No. L-61042, April 15, 1987, 149 SCRA 265, citing Abiera v. C o u of( J ! t
Appeals, G.R. No. L-26294, May 31, 1972, 45 SCRA 314; Bayer Phil. v. Agana, G.R. No. L-38701, April
8, 1975, 63 SCRA355.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 215933
relieve petitioner from the adverse effects of the lower court's judgment.
Thus, the CA did not err in saying that Section 16 of Rule 39 provides a
more expeditious and encompassing recourse from the denial of its third-
party claim.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
CU:J'2r
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE CA~ENDOZA
Ass~\J;;eLIJdstice Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
~~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Decision 13 G.R. No. 215933
CERTIFICATION