FELISA REJUSO AND AMERIGO REJUSO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. IRENEO ESTIPONA AND ERIBERTO A. UNSON, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF DAVAO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Rejuso versus Estipona

The Case

This is the story of a wife who tried to save the family home by opening a second case in the very same court that had already ordered its sale. Felisa Rejuso and her husband Amerigo Rejuso sued Ireneo Estipona and the Provincial Sheriff of Davao to annul an attachment, an execution sale, and a writ of possession that had been issued against their residential house and lot. The couple claimed the property was conjugal partnership property and therefore could not be touched in a case to which Felisa was never a party. The case matters because it draws a hard line around the power of one branch of a court to undo the processes of another branch of the same court, and because it teaches that even a question of jurisdiction can become final and closed.

Procedural History

The events began in the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch One, in a collection and mortgage-annulment case brought by Ireneo Estipona against Amerigo Rejuso. That case ended in a default judgment against Amerigo, which became final. The attached house and lot were levied upon and sold on execution to Estipona, and the court later issued a writ of possession. Amerigo had earlier asked that same court to annul the very attachment, execution sale, and writ of possession now in dispute; his motion was denied for lack of merit, and his motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, and he took no appeal from those denials.

Felisa then joined her husband and filed a separate action in the same court, Branch One, to annul those same processes. Estipona moved to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, since a branch of a court cannot annul or enjoin the processes issued by another branch in another case. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case without pronouncement as to costs. The Rejusos appealed that order of dismissal directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the nineteenth of September, nineteen hundred sixty-four, Ireneo Estipona sued Amerigo Rejuso in the Court of First Instance of Davao. Estipona sought to annul a deed of mortgage that Amerigo had executed over the lot and house where he and his family lived, near the Santa Ana School Site in Davao City, and to collect a two thousand four hundred peso obligation that Amerigo had contracted with him earlier that year. To secure any judgment he might obtain, Estipona caused a writ of preliminary attachment to be issued over that house and lot.

On the twenty-fifth of January, nineteen hundred sixty-five, the trial court rendered a default judgment against Amerigo. It annulled the deed of mortgage and ordered him to pay Estipona two thousand four hundred pesos with legal interest from the filing of the complaint, plus attorney's fees and costs. That judgment became final. The attached house and lot were then levied upon and sold on execution by the Sheriff of Davao to Estipona for the entire amount of the judgment in his favor. Later, upon Estipona's motion, the court issued a writ of possession on the seventh of May, nineteen hundred sixty-six, and the Provincial Sheriff of Davao sought to eject Amerigo and his family so that Estipona could take possession.

It was at that point, on the twentieth of June, nineteen hundred sixty-six, that Amerigo, now joined by his wife Felisa, filed a new case in the same court to annul the attachment, the execution sale, and the writ of possession. They claimed the house and lot were conjugal partnership property and so were not subject to those proceedings, especially since Felisa had not been a party to the earlier case. They also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction. Estipona moved to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and the relief sought. Hence the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not a branch of the Court of First Instance may annul or enjoin an attachment, execution sale, and writ of possession issued by another branch of the same court in a separate case.
• Whether or not the validity of those processes, having been raised and resolved in the earlier case and never appealed, is already final and binding as to Amerigo Rejuso.
• Whether or not Felisa Rejuso, who was not a party to the earlier case, may bring a separate action to annul those processes.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on settled doctrine, and the governing rule of procedure on judgments is reflected in Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows: (a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of the will of a deceased person, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will, or the estate, respectively; (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

This rule explains why the unappealed denials in the earlier case closed the question for Amerigo, and why the processes could be attacked only in the case that issued them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal had no merit. Once the property was levied upon by attachment by order of the court in the earlier case, it fell into the custody of the law, what the Court calls custodia legis, meaning it was held under the control of that court for the purposes of that case only. Any relief against the attachment, the execution, and the writ of possession that followed could be disposed of only in that case. A separate branch could not undo what the first branch had done.

On the second issue, the Court noted the undenied allegation that Amerigo had already asked the earlier court to reconsider the questioned processes, that his motion was denied, and that he never brought the denial to the appellate courts. The issue he was raising was therefore already dead. The denial orders had become final and binding as to him. The Court added that it does not matter that a question of jurisdiction is involved, because that issue was itself already resolved in the unappealed denial orders and had become res adjudicata, meaning the matter was finally settled and could not be relitigated. Even an issue of jurisdiction becomes res adjudicata once it is properly raised and resolved and the resolution becomes final. In any event, the Court said, it becomes the law of the case.

On the third issue, the Court turned to Felisa, the new party. Her remedy, if it had not yet been barred by the statute of limitations or become stale in some other way, lay within the earlier case. The Court held that it is superfluous to start a new action on a matter that can be more simply and conveniently litigated within a former proceeding of which it is more logically and legally an integral part. The court in which the former proceeding was pending has exclusive jurisdiction over it, and this holds even though the two cases were in the same branch of the same court and presided over by the same judge. The Court observed that this practice is simpler and more convenient, and it ensures consistency in the resolution of related questions.

Doctrine

Property levied upon by attachment falls into the custody of the law of the court that ordered the levy, and any relief against that attachment and the execution and writ of possession that follow must be sought in that same case, not in a separate action before another branch. A question of jurisdiction, once properly raised and resolved and the resolution becomes final, becomes res adjudicata and may no longer be relitigated; it also becomes the law of the case. A new party who claims an interest in property already under the control of a court in a pending case must assert that interest within that case, for the court in which the former proceeding is pending has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, even if the new case is filed in the same branch and before the same judge.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against the Rejusos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a branch of a court cannot annul or enjoin the processes issued by another branch in another case, because the attached property is in the custody of the law of the court that ordered the levy. Examiners use this case on the finality of orders resolving jurisdiction, on res adjudicata and the law of the case, and on the rule that a wife who was not a party to the earlier case must still litigate her conjugal claim within that case and not in a fresh action.