FE MADRIDEO AND NARCISO MATURGO, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO LLORENTE, MATILDE GENTLE, ONISIMO LLORENTE, ANTONIA TAMBOR, LUISA LLORENTE, JOSE LLORENTE, …

Madrideo versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Fe Madrideo and Narciso Maturgo, whom the decision calls the Spouses Maturgo, against the Court of Appeals and the Llorente Group. The Spouses Maturgo ask the Supreme Court to undo a judgment of the appellate court that cancelled the transfer certificates of title issued in their names and reinstated the old titles of the Llorente Group, even though the Spouses Maturgo had won in the trial court and had never appealed. The case matters because it fixes a hard boundary on appellate power: an appellate court cannot grant affirmative relief against a party who was not an appellant and who was not even a party to the appeal, and it cannot reverse a finding that no one challenged.

Procedural History

The story begins in the Court of First Instance of Albay, where the Llorente Group sued the Alcala Group and the Spouses Maturgo to annul titles allegedly obtained by fraud. The trial court ruled for the Spouses Maturgo, declaring them purchasers in good faith who could keep their titles, and ruled against the Alcala Group, ordering it to pay the Llorente Group the actual market value of the two lots. Only the Alcala Group appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Spouses Maturgo were neither appellants nor appellees, since the judgment was in their favor and the Llorente Group had not appealed. The Court of Appeals nonetheless modified the judgment, declared the titles in the names of any of the defendants null and void, reinstated the original certificates of title in the records of the Register of Deeds, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. After judgment was entered and the records returned to the lower court, the Spouses Maturgo's titles were cancelled and new titles were issued to the Llorente Group, then transferred to the Church Assistance Program. The Spouses Maturgo moved before the Court of Appeals to set aside the entry of judgment and recall the records, but the motion was denied. They then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Facts

Two cadastral lots in Daraga, Albay were originally covered by original certificates of title issued in the names of the predecessors in interest of the Llorente Group. In 1971, upon petition in the cadastral case, those certificates were cancelled and replaced by transfer certificates of title in the name of the Alcala Group, on the finding that the Llorente Group's predecessors had previously sold the lots to the Alcala Group. The Alcala Group then sold the lots to the Spouses Maturgo, who were issued their own transfer certificates of title.

The Llorente Group sued, alleging fraud both in the cancellation of the original certificates in favor of the Alcala Group and in the transfer to the Spouses Maturgo. The trial court found the Spouses Maturgo to be purchasers in good faith who could retain their titles, and found that the Llorente Group had been unlawfully divested by the Alcala Group, which was ordered to pay the then actual market value of the lots.

Only the Alcala Group appealed. The Court of Appeals, in resolving that appeal, went beyond it: it voided the titles of all the defendants, reinstated the Llorente Group's original certificates, and awarded attorney's fees and costs. The Spouses Maturgo's titles were cancelled and the land passed to the Llorente Group and then to the Church Assistance Program before the Spouses Maturgo could obtain relief.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's finding in favor of the Spouses Maturgo and against the Llorente Group, when the Llorente Group had not appealed from that finding.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals could grant the Llorente Group, as an appellee who did not appeal, affirmative relief other than what the trial court had already granted it.
• Whether or not the Spouses Maturgo, who were neither appellants nor appellees in the appeal, could be bound by a judgment rendered in that appeal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the settled rule of appellate practice on the relief an appellee may obtain, which the Court states as follows:

It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that whenever an appeal is taken in a civil case an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below.

This rule disposes of the case, because the Llorente Group never appealed and could not ask the appellate court for more than the trial court had given it.

The Court reinforces the rule with the doctrine that an appellee may assign errors only to sustain the judgment, not to overturn it:

the principle is that while an appellee who is not an appellant, may assign errors in her brief, she may do so only to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but not to have the judgment modified or reversed, for, in such case she must appeal.

This explains why the Llorente Group could defend the judgment below but could not use the Alcala Group's appeal to take the lots back from the Spouses Maturgo.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's finding in favor of the Spouses Maturgo and against the Llorente Group, precisely because the Llorente Group had not appealed from that finding. A winning party who does not appeal cannot have the judgment reversed at the instance of someone else's appeal.

On the second issue, the Court applied the settled rule that an appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain affirmative relief beyond what the trial court granted. The Llorente Group had been given the right to collect from the Alcala Group the reasonable market value of the lots; that was the full extent of its relief. The appellate court, in the Alcala Group's appeal, could not give it anything more, and in particular could not make it recover the lots from the Spouses Maturgo. The Court quoted the rule that an appellee may assign errors only to maintain the judgment on other grounds, not to have it modified or reversed, for to do that she must appeal.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no valid justiciable issue in the Alcala appeal between the Llorente Group and the Spouses Maturgo, who were not parties to that appeal. The Court of Appeals therefore acted without jurisdiction in ruling in favor of the Llorente Group and against the Spouses Maturgo while deciding the Alcala Group's appeal.

Doctrine

An appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than what the decision of the court below already granted him. He may assign errors in his brief only to maintain the judgment on other grounds; if he wants the judgment modified or reversed, he must appeal.

An appellate court has no jurisdiction to reverse a finding of the trial court in favor of a party against whom no appeal was taken, and it cannot render judgment against a person who was neither an appellant nor an appellee in the appeal before it. Any such ruling is void for want of jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the Spouses Maturgo, and directed the Regional Trial Court to hear and determine the rights and obligations of the Church Assistance Program as an incident of the case.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an appellee who did not appeal may assign errors only to maintain the judgment, never to modify or reverse it, for that he must appeal. Examiners use this case to test appellate jurisdiction and the rule that no court may grant relief against a party who was never brought before it on appeal.