VALENTE RAYMUNDO, PETITIONER, VS. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA. DE SUAREZ, DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ, MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR, EVELYN SUAREZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Valente Raymundo versus Teofista Isagon Vda. de Suarez

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court brought by Valente Raymundo against Teofista Isagon Vda. de Suarez and her children, the Suarez heirs. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City which, in executing a prior Supreme Court decision, declared the auction sale of five parcels of land null and void, cancelled the transfer certificate of title issued in the petitioner's name, and ordered the reinstatement of the title in the name of the deceased Marcelo Suarez. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the extent of a judgment creditor's power to levy and sell on execution property that a judgment debtor owns only in common with her children, and it teaches how a final and executory decision of the Supreme Court is to be implemented by the court below.

Procedural History

The long litigation began in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 1, in consolidated cases for rescission of contract and damages. Judgment was rendered against Rizal Realty Corporation and Teofista Suarez, holding them solidarily liable for damages. That judgment became final and executory, and the subject properties were levied and sold at public auction in June 1983 to the plaintiffs, who were the highest bidders. A certificate of sale was issued and registered in their favor, and a final deed of sale followed in July 1984.

Before the redemption period expired, the Suarez heirs filed a revindicatory action in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 155, for annulment of the auction sale and recovery of ownership. That case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, but the dismissal was later lifted. The defendants then went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari, and the appellate court annulled the trial court orders and directed the dismissal of the case, invoking res judicata and holding that the heirs merely stepped into the shoes of their mother. The heirs appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the case solely to determine the portion belonging to the heirs and to annul the sale as to that portion.

On remand, the case was repeatedly re-raffled among the branches of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, and the first volume of the records was lost during the renovation of the Justice Hall. The records were reconstituted. The trial court then issued the orders now challenged, declaring the auction sale void, cancelling the petitioner's title, and ordering the reinstatement of the title in the name of the deceased. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his appeal was rejected as improper because the orders were interlocutory. Hence, this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Marcelo Suarez and Teofista Isagon were married under the conjugal partnership of gains and acquired numerous properties, including the five parcels of land later levied on execution. Their marriage produced the respondent children. Marcelo died in 1955, and Teofista and the children executed an extrajudicial settlement of his estate, partitioning the properties so that each heir received a share in common, pro indiviso. Despite the partition, the titles remained in the couple's name, and Teofista continued to administer the properties as de facto administrator.

In 1975, Valente Raymundo and his co-plaintiffs sued Rizal Realty Corporation and Teofista, who owned most of the corporation's shares, for rescission and damages. The Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment rescinding the contracts and holding the two defendants solidarily liable for about 70,000 pesos in damages. When that judgment became final, the subject properties were levied and sold at auction in June 1983 to the plaintiffs for 94,170 pesos, and a final deed of sale was issued in July 1984.

The Suarez children, who were never impleaded in the case against their mother, filed an action to annul the sale, insisting that the properties they co-owned with their mother could not be levied for her personal obligation. The Supreme Court agreed in principle, holding that only the mother's share could have been sold, and remanded the case to determine the children's portion and to annul the sale as to that portion. On remand, the trial court, implementing that decision, voided the entire auction sale, cancelled the petitioner's title, ordered the reinstatement of the original title in the name of the deceased, and directed Teofista to reimburse the bid price with legal interest.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the entire auction sale null and void and in cancelling the transfer certificate of title issued to the petitioner.
• Whether or not the trial court's orders implementing the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court were proper and within its jurisdiction.
• Whether or not the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs prayed for in his petition for certiorari.

Applicable Provisions

Article 777 of the Civil Code, which the Court cited in its earlier decision, provides:

The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.

This provision is the foundation of the ruling that the children became co-owners of the properties by hereditary right from the moment of their father's death, and not through their mother.

Article 888 of the Civil Code provides:

The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.

This provision measures the hereditary share of the children, which the Court used to show that their proprietary interest is distinct from and adverse to their mother's.

Article 892, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides:

If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.

This provision fixes the surviving spouse's legitime as equal to that of each child, confirming that the mother's share in the levied properties was only a portion, not the whole.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion. The orders complained of were issued precisely to implement the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court, which had already ruled that only one-half of the five parcels of land should have been the subject of the auction sale, because the children's proprietary interest was different from and adverse to that of their mother. The Court emphasized that the children became co-owners not through their mother but through their own right as children of their deceased father, and were therefore not barred from instituting the action to annul the sale to protect their own interest. The trial court's implementation of that mandate, including the annulment of the sale and the cancellation of the title issued to the petitioner, was a faithful execution of the Supreme Court's directive.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the trial court's orders as proper implementation of a final judgment. The decision of September 4, 1992 had become final and executory, and it was the ministerial duty of the court below to execute it. The trial court's order directing the parties to submit evidence of the settlement of the estate of Marcelo Suarez was consistent with the remand, which was limited to determining the portion belonging to the heirs and annulling the sale as to that portion.

On the third issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only where there is no appeal, or where the appeal is not an adequate remedy, and the petitioner failed to show that the trial court acted capriciously or whimsically. The petition was therefore denied.

Doctrine

First, the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent, so that the heirs become co-owners of the estate by hereditary right and not through the surviving spouse. Second, a judgment creditor may levy and sell on execution only the actual share of the judgment debtor in property held in common; a sale that includes the shares of co-owners who were never impleaded is void as to those shares. Third, the proprietary interest of children in the estate of their deceased father is distinct from and adverse to that of their mother, and they are not barred by res judicata from bringing an action to annul a sale that prejudiced their own interest. Fourth, a final and executory judgment is the law of the case, and the court below has the ministerial duty to execute it faithfully and may not deviate from its mandate.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the trial court orders implementing its earlier decision, so that the auction sale was annulled and the title was restored in the name of the deceased Marcelo Suarez, with the petitioner's remedy limited to the share of Teofista.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a judgment debtor's share in co-owned property is the only thing that may be levied and sold on execution, and the co-owners who were never impleaded cannot be bound. Examiners like to use this case in civil procedure, on execution and satisfaction of judgments, and in succession, on the transmission of rights from the moment of death and the legitime of the surviving spouse.