MARGARITA VILLARICA, PETITIONER, VS. PEDRO MA. SISON, ANTONIO HORRILLENO, AND MANUEL V. MORAN, JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an original petition for
certiorari filed by Margarita Villarica against the Honorables Pedro
Ma. Sison, Antonio Horrilleno and Manuel V. Moran, Judges of the Court
of First Instance of Manila, and others, praying for the annulment of
the orders dated March 10, September 18, and September 29, 1934,
respectively, and entered in civil case No. 44406 of said court, on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the respondent judges who entered
them.^[1]

The pertinent facts necessary for the resolution of the questions raised in this petition are as follows:

On August 24, 1933, the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, in open
court, rendered the following decision in civil case No. 44406 wherein
Margarita Villarica was the plaintiff and Andrea Cuison the defendant,
to wit:

“DECISION

“After this case was called for hearing, the
parties with their respective counsel submitted .to the court the
following stipulation:

” ‘Come now the parties of the
above-entitled case and to this Honorable Court hereby submit the
following stipulation of facts:

“‘ 1. That the herein
defendant, Andrea Cuison, does hereby confess judgment in favor of the
herein plaintiff, Margarita Villarica, in the following amounts:

P5,000.00	—as principal.
1,100.00	—as interest from March 1, 1932 up to and including
	Jan. 15, 1934.
200.00	—as attorney’s fees.
________
6,300 00	—total.

“‘ 2. That the herein plaintiff hereby accepts this stipulation as Herein shown.

“‘ 3. That the judgment of the above-entitled case will not be entered
into until January 15, 1934, which judgment is final in itself.

“‘ Wherefore, the parties herein respectfully pray this Honorable Court to enter judgment as herein stipulated.’

“Wherefore, the court approves this stipulation and orders the parties to comply with the terms thereof.

“So ordered.—Manila, P. I., August 24, 1933.”

On August 26, 1933, the parties were notified of said decision and
none, of them protested that it was premature or that it should be
rendered on January 15, 1934, in conformity with their compromise.
Neither did they except to nor appeal therefrom.

On January 11, 1934, Lemerina Paralejo Tuason and others filed a
motion praying, for the reasons therein stated, that said decision
dated August 24, 1933, and rendered in civil case No. 44406 be set
aside and that they be permitted to intervene therein as third party
claimants (Exhibit B).

On March 10, 1934, the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison,
notwithstanding the opposition of the herein petitioner, entered an
order granting said motion, setting aside his decision dated August 24,
1933, and authorizing the therein petitioners to file their third party
claim.

On September 14, 1934, the herein petitioner filed a motion in the
Court of First Instance of Manila praying that the order entered by the
respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, dated March 10, 1934, be set aside
on the ground that it was entered without jurisdiction. The respondent
judge, Antonio Horrilleno, then presiding, in an order dated September
18, 1934, denied said motion for alleged lack of merit.

On September 26,1934, the same petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the respondent judge, Manuel V.
Moran, then presiding, in an order dated September 29, 1934.

The first question to be decided in this petition is whether or not
the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, rendered judgment by virtue of
the compromise made by the parties in civil case No. 44406 of the Court
of First Instance of Manila wherein Margarita, Villarica was the
plaintiff and Andrea Cuison the defendant.

The petitioner maintains the affirmative, inviting attention to the
above-quoted document entitled “DECISION”, and dated August 24, 1933;
while the respondents maintain the negative, inviting attention to the
third clause of the stipulation contained in the decision above stated.

In view of said decision dated August 24, 1933, whereby the
respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, ordered the parties to comply with
their agreement; in view of the silence of the parties to civil case
No. 44406, upon hearing said order entered in open court and upon being
notified thereof on August 26, 1933; in view of the same motion filed
by the respondents in said civil case, praying that the decision
rendered by the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, dated August 24,
1933, be set aside and that they be permitted to file a third party
claim; in view of the same order of said respondent judge, Pedro Ma.
Sison, granting the motion in question and setting aside his decision
dated August 24, 1933; and in view of the respondents’ answer to this
petition stating that the decision of the respondent judge, Pedro Ma.
Sison, dated August 24, 1933, did not become executory until January
15,1934, there is not the least doubt but that on said date of August
24, 1933, the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, rendered a decision in
civil case No. 44406; that the plaintiff as well as the defendant so
understood and conformed therewith, and that the respondents likewise
so understood when they prayed that said decision be set aside, and
when the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, set aside his said decision.

The second question to be decided is whether or not the stipulation
of the parties in civil case No. 44406 of the Court of First Instance
of Manila was to the effect that judgment should be rendered
immediately or on January 15, 1934.

Although the wording of the compromise is defective and may be
interpreted in the sense that the parties agreed that said decision
should not be rendered until January 15, 1934, all doubt relative
thereto vanished with the action taken by the respondent judge, Pedro
Ma. Sison, who tried the case, and with the conduct of the parties who,
after they had made said compromise, never questioned, and they are not
now questioning, the timeliness of said decision, being the only
persons entitled to interpret their own compromise, and with that of
the herein respondents, although, not being parties to the compromise
in question, they have no right to interpret it, much less change the
interpretation given by the same parties.

The third question to be decided is whether or not the respondent
judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside his
decision dated August 24, 1933, after more than thirty days had elapsed
from the date on which the parties had been notified thereof.

The decision based on the compromise made by the parties in civil case No. 44406 was rendered on August 24, 1933,^[1]
and the parties were notified thereof on the 26th of said month and
year. Inasmuch as none of the parties filed a motion for a new trial or
excepted to said decision within thirty days from the date on which
they were notified thereof, the same became final, although not
executory, and the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, who rendered it,
was deprived of his jurisdiction to amend, alter or revoke it.

The fourth question to be decided is whether or not the respondent
judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, had jurisdiction to permit the respondents to
intervene in civil case No. 44406 and to file a third party claim.

Section 121 of Act No. 190 provides that “a person may, at any
period of a trial, upon motion, be permitted by the court to intervene
in an action or proceeding, if he has legal interest in the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest
against both.” In this case the respondents’ motion praying for
permission to intervene in civil case No. 44406 was filed one hundred
and fifty-six days after the parties had been notified of the decision
rendered therein and one hundred and twenty-six days after it had
become final, and after the respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, who had
rendered it, had lost his jurisdiction over it. Therefore said
respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, acted without jurisdiction in
permitting the respondents to intervene and file a third claim in civil
case No. 44406, not only after the trial had been finished but also
after the judgment, which he had rendered therein, had become final.

In view of the foregoing considerations, this court is of the
opinion and so holds that a judge who permits a person to intervene in
a civil case and to file a third party claim therein after the judgment
has become final, exceeds his jurisdiction, and the order entered to
that effect is null and void.

Wherefore, the remedy prayed for is granted and the orders entered
by the respondent judges, Pedro Ma. Sison, Antonio Horrilleno, and
Manuel V. Moran, dated March 10, September 18 and September 29, 1534,
respectively, are declared null and void, and the preliminary
injunction issued therein is made final, with costs against the
respondents Lemerina Paralejo Tuason, Fernando Clemente, German
Paralejo Tuason, Luz Paralejo Tuason, Ricardo Paralejo Tuason and Cesar
Paralejo Tuason.^[1] So ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Resolution of the Supreme Court of November 5, 1934.

^[1] Resolution of the Supreme Court of November 5, 1934.

^[1] Resolution of the Supreme Court of November 5, 1934.