SOFIA ANIOSA SALANDANAN, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES MA. ISABEL AND BAYANI MENDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Salandanan versus Mendez

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Sofia Aniosa Salandanan against the spouses Ma. Isabel and Bayani Mendez. The Mendezes had sued the spouses Fernandez for unlawful detainer over a house and lot in Sta. Cruz, Manila, and won before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however, extended its order to vacate to "all persons claiming rights under" the Fernandeses and expressly named Salandanan, who had never been a party below. Salandanan asks the Supreme Court to undo that inclusion and to allow her to intervene. The case matters because it fixes the boundaries of an ejectment judgment: who is bound by it, who may still intervene, and why ownership cannot be litigated in a summary action for possession.

Procedural History

The Mendezes filed a complaint for ejectment against the spouses Fernandez before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, which rendered judgment for the Mendezes, ordering the Fernandeses and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate and to pay monthly rentals and attorney's fees. The Fernandeses appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Pending appeal, the Regional Trial Court ordered execution pending appeal after the Fernandeses failed to deposit the monthly rentals as they fell due, and later authorized the sheriff to employ necessary force to enter the premises. The Fernandeses then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, which was granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court in full and ordered the Fernandeses and all persons claiming rights under them, including Salandanan, to vacate. Salandanan then filed a motion for clarification and intervention, which the Court of Appeals denied as belatedly filed, noting that she had already instituted a separate action for annulment and reconveyance of title. Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The Mendezes claimed ownership of the property under a transfer certificate of title issued by virtue of a deed of donation. The Fernandeses had been occupying the property for free through the generosity of Isabel Mendez's father. A demand to vacate was sent, the barangay settlement failed, and the Mendezes sued for ejectment in April 2002.

The Fernandeses answered that the registered owners were the spouses Pablo and Sofia Salandanan, that Delfin Fernandez was the nephew of Pablo Salandanan and had occupied the property since time immemorial with the spouses' permission, and that the deed of donation was simulated and fictitious. They disclosed that a separate case for annulment, revocation and reconveyance of title had been filed in July 2001.

When the sheriff went to implement the writ of execution pending appeal, he found the place padlocked and Salandanan, an old woman, alone inside. The Mendezes alleged she had been fetched that very day from her residence in Dasmariñas, Cavite and placed inside so she could plead for mercy. The Fernandeses never refuted this. Salandanan then sought to intervene, claiming she was the true owner and had never been impleaded or notified.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in including Salandanan in its judgment and ordering her to vacate although she was not a party to the ejectment case.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying her motion for clarification and intervention filed after judgment had been rendered.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals should have resolved the issue of ownership to determine who has the better right of possession.
• Whether or not the ejectment case should have been suspended in view of the pending action on ownership.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Who may intervene. - A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

This governs whether Salandanan may still be admitted as an intervenor and directs the court to weigh delay and the adequacy of a separate proceeding.

Section 2 of Rule 19 provides:

Section 2. Time to intervene. - The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.

This fixes the deadline that Salandanan's motion, filed after the Court of Appeals had already decided, had clearly missed.

Section 18 of Rule 70 provides:

The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building.

This explains why Salandanan's claim of ownership could not be resolved within the ejectment case at all.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Salandanan may be bound by the ejectment judgment despite not being a party. A judgment directing delivery of possession is generally binding only on parties impleaded and heard, but the Court recognized an exception: a non-party may be bound where he is a trespasser or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment, a guest or occupant with the defendant's permission, a transferee pendente lite, a sublessee, a co-lessee, or a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant. Salandanan fell within these categories, having been placed inside the premises on the day of execution. Her ownership not having been established, she could not claim the judgment did not reach her.

On the second issue, the Court held that the denial of intervention was correct. Intervention is allowed only before rendition of judgment by the trial court; afterward it is barred because intervention is not an independent action but is ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation. The Court added that ejectment is a summary proceeding designed for the speedy restoration of possession, and that Salandanan's rights were fully protected in her separate action for annulment and reconveyance. It also noted she already knew of the execution when she pleaded with the sheriff, and that was the proper time to intervene.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court held that ownership could not be resolved in the ejectment case. The only issue is who is entitled to physical or material possession, independently of any claim of ownership. Since the property is registered under the Torrens system in the Mendezes' name, their title is presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked in a mere action for unlawful detainer. The factual findings of the lower courts, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and fall under no recognized exception.

Doctrine

A motion to intervene must be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court; thereafter it is barred, because intervention is ancillary and supplemental, not an independent action. In deciding whether to allow it, courts must consider whether it will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties and whether the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

An ejectment judgment is conclusive only as to possession and does not bind title or ownership. The sole issue is physical or material possession, and a Torrens title is presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked in such a summary action.

Although a judgment on possession is in personam and binds only parties impleaded and heard, a non-party may be bound where he is a trespasser or agent fraudulently occupying to frustrate the judgment, a guest or occupant with the defendant's permission, a transferee pendente lite, a sublessee, a co-lessee, or a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the rulings below, including the order for Salandanan and all persons claiming rights under the Fernandeses to vacate the premises.

Remember This

Memorize this line: intervention dies upon rendition of judgment by the trial court, and an ejectment judgment binds possession only, never title. Examiners use this case to test the six exceptions to the in personam rule in ejectment suits and the rule that Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked in unlawful detainer.