RUBEN S. SIA, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE P. MARIANO (HELEN S. MARIANO, JOSE M.S. MARIANO, DANILO D.S. MARIANO, MA. SOFIA C.S. MARIANO, MA. LEONOR S. MARIANO), TESTATE ESTATE …

Sia versus Heirs of Jose P. Mariano

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Ruben Sia against the Heirs of Jose P. Mariano and Erlinda Mariano-Villanueva. Sia asks the Supreme Court to strike down a portion of a Court of Appeals resolution that declared the respondents entitled to redeem a parcel of land known as Lot 15-C from him. The case matters because it tests the outer limits of an appellate court's power: may it rule on a property and against a person who were never part of the case before it? It also teaches the doctrine of mootness, since a separate final decision of the Supreme Court had already settled the very question of redemption.

Procedural History

The dispute began in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, where two complaints for annulment of sale and reconveyance were filed and later consolidated for joint trial. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a Joint Judgment dismissing the complaints and upholding the validity of the deeds of absolute sale executed by Irene Mariano in favor of Raul Santos.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the deeds of sale simulated and void, cancelling the titles issued in the names of Raul Santos and Amado Sanao, and ordering new titles in the name of the heirs of Irene Mariano. Raul Santos moved for reconsideration, and the respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration and clarification, asking that Lot 15-C be included in the relief. The Court of Appeals then issued the assailed Resolution, denying the motions for reconsideration but granting the respondents' supplemental motion and declaring that they have the right to redeem Lot 15-C from Ruben Sia.

Sia elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising a single assigned error: that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the right to redeem Lot 15-C when redemption was never raised as an issue, never made the subject of an assignment of error, and was not treated in the parties' briefs.

Facts

Spouses Macario Mariano and Irene Mariano owned six parcels of land. When Macario died in December 1972, Irene and their adopted children, Jose Mariano and Erlinda Mariano-Villanueva, executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate, and new titles were issued in their names. In February 1974, Irene executed an affidavit of merger, consolidating the titles in her own name. She later married Rolando Relucio.

In April 1975, Irene sold several lots to Raul Santos, Rolando's first cousin, for a total consideration of 150,000 pesos. In March 1982, she sold two more lots to Raul. Meanwhile, Lot 15-C had been levied upon in favor of a certain Francisco Bautista in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur. In December 1988, Lot 15-C was sold at public auction to Ruben Sia, who was issued a new title in his name.

Irene died in June 1988. Jose and Erlinda then filed complaints seeking annulment of the sales on grounds of forgery and simulation, and reconveyance of the properties. Jose died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his heirs. The trial court upheld the sales, but the Court of Appeals reversed and found them simulated. When the respondents sought clarification, the Court of Appeals declared them entitled to redeem Lot 15-C from Sia, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the respondents have the right to redeem Lot 15-C from Sia, when redemption was never raised as an issue before the trial court or on appeal.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals could validly rule on Lot 15-C when that lot was not a subject matter of the case before it.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals could make a declaration affecting Sia's property rights when he was never impleaded as a party in the case.
• Whether or not the issue of redemption had been rendered moot and academic by a prior final decision of the Supreme Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, Rule 51 of the Revised Rules of Court, which the petitioner invokes against the appellate court's action, provides:

A judgment or final order disposing of a case shall not be reversed or modified except upon an error assigned in the appeal.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals could not grant relief on a matter that was never assigned as an error on appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the petition. It found that the declaration of a right of redemption was improper because three undisputed facts stood out: the petitioner was neither a party before the trial court nor before the Court of Appeals; Lot 15-C was not a subject matter of the case; and a prior decision of the Supreme Court had already expressly declared the respondents' right to redeem the lot covered by the title corresponding to Lot 15-C.

On the second issue, the Court held that Lot 15-C was not among the parcels of land involved in the appeal. The Court of Appeals itself had mentioned only Lot 15-A, Lot 15-B, Lot 545 and Lot 2348 as the lots subject of the case. This fact, together with the petitioner's non-inclusion as a party, militated against the propriety of the declaration.

On the third issue, the Court emphasized that the petitioner was never impleaded as a party in the case, so the appellate court could not make a declaration that would adversely affect his property rights.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there was no longer any actual case or controversy between the parties on the redemption of Lot 15-C. This was settled by the Supreme Court's earlier decision, promulgated in April 2000, a little over a month before the assailed resolution, which had ordered the Provincial Sheriff to accept payment of redemption money from Erlinda Mariano and had nullified the deed of sale issued in favor of Sia. That decision became final in October 2000.

Doctrine

A judgment or final order disposing of a case shall not be reversed or modified except upon an error assigned in the appeal. An appellate court cannot grant relief on a matter that was never raised as an issue, never assigned as an error, and never treated in the parties' briefs.

An appellate court cannot validly rule on a parcel of land that is not a subject matter of the case before it, nor make a declaration that adversely affects the property rights of a person who was never impleaded as a party.

Where a prior final decision of the Supreme Court has already settled the very question raised, there is no longer any actual case or controversy, and the issue is moot and academic.

Disposition

The petition was granted, and the portion of the Court of Appeals Resolution declaring that the respondents have the right to redeem Lot 15-C from Ruben Sia was deleted, subject to the Supreme Court's final decision in the earlier redemption case.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an appellate court cannot reverse or modify a judgment except upon an error assigned in the appeal, and it cannot rule against a person who was never made a party. Examiners use this case to test the limits of appellate review, the requirement of an assigned error, and the doctrine of mootness where a prior final judgment has already resolved the issue.