ENRICO SY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ARTURO A. ROMERO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 120, AND DR. SALUSTIANO L. CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

Sy versus Romero

The Case

This is Sy versus Romero, a special civil action for certiorari brought by Enrico Sy against Judge Arturo Romero, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 120, and against the private respondent, Dr. Salustiano Castillo. Sy asks the Supreme Court to annul a demolition order issued by the respondent judge long after the ejectment judgment against his mother, Antonia Lumbang, had become final. He claims the original ejectment case was fatally flawed because it was not brought against the real party in interest, since he had allegedly bought the house from his mother years before. The case matters because it settles two things a reviewee must know: certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, and the power to execute an ejectment judgment belongs to the court of origin, not to the appellate court that affirmed it.

Procedural History

The private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment against Antonia Lumbang before the City Court of Kalookan City, which decided in his favor. Lumbang appealed to the then Court of First Instance of Kalookan City, which affirmed the decision in full. That decision became final, and the private respondent moved for execution.

After the sheriff served a notice of ejectment on Enrico Sy, he filed a motion to intervene and to annul the decision in the same case, now pending before Branch 120 of the Regional Trial Court. The respondent judge first allowed him to file a complaint in intervention, but later set that order aside, denied the motion to annul, and granted the motion for demolition. Instead of moving for reconsideration or appealing, Sy filed a petition for prohibition before another branch of the same court, which dismissed it for lack of authority to interfere with a court of concurrent jurisdiction. Again without appealing, Sy filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which gave it due course and issued a temporary restraining order against the demolition.

Facts

Dr. Salustiano Castillo owned a parcel of land in Maypajo, Kalookan City, known as the Doña Leoncia Subdivision. Antonia Lumbang was one of his lessees. In May 1979, Castillo filed an ejectment complaint against her. During the trial, her son Enrico Sy testified that he had lived in the house since 1948 and that it would cost about 70,000 pesos. He did not claim ownership of the house, and the deed of sale he would later invoke was never offered in evidence. The city court ruled against Lumbang in March 1982, ordering her or anyone claiming right under her to vacate the premises and surrender possession to Castillo.

Lumbang appealed, and the Court of First Instance affirmed the decision in October 1982. The decision became final. When the sheriff served a notice of ejectment on Sy in December 1986, he filed a motion to intervene and to annul the judgment, claiming for the first time that he had bought the house from his mother in February 1976. Lumbang, he added, had died in February 1984.

The respondent judge initially allowed intervention but, in February 1987, set that order aside, denied the motion to annul, and granted the motion for demolition. A notice of demolition was issued against Mrs. Antonia Lumbang or any person claiming right under her. Sy's later petition for prohibition was dismissed, and he then came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for certiorari may be used as a substitute for the remedy of appeal that the petitioner lost through his own fault.
• Whether or not the petition was filed within a reasonable time from the issuance of the assailed order.
• Whether or not the ejectment judgment binds Enrico Sy even though he was not impleaded as a party.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court, as the affirming court, had jurisdiction to order the execution and demolition in the ejectment case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, on the entry of judgment, provides:

If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry.

This provision bears on the case because the Court held that the Regional Trial Court should have entered judgment in the appealed case and then remanded the records to the court of origin for execution.

Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on execution, provides:

A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.

This provision bears on the case because the Court set aside the demolition order without prejudice to its refiling in the Metropolitan Trial Court, unless already barred by this five-year period.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must fail. Certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, and the exception applies only where the right to appeal was lost through no fault of the party. Sy allowed both the order denying his motion and the order dismissing his petition for prohibition to lapse into finality through his own fault.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if certiorari were available, the petition was filed nearly one year and four months after the assailed order. That is an unreasonable length of time. The Court refused to place a premium on apathy or sloth, invoking the maxim that the laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

On the third issue, the Court held that the ejectment judgment binds Sy. A judgment in an ejectment case binds not only the defendant but also those who have claims against the former, because no one may assert a right superior to the rights of a defendant in an ejectment suit. Sy's rights are limited to those of a mere sublessee or assignee, and even if he was not impleaded, he is bound by the judgment against his mother. His failure to intervene or to produce the deed of sale when he testified cast serious doubt on that deed, which surfaced only in 1987.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that although the judgment binds Sy, the execution and the demolition order fall within the jurisdiction of the City Court, now the Metropolitan Trial Court, which rendered the decision. An appellate court that affirms an ejectment decision cannot decree its execution in the guise of executing the affirming decision, except when it grants execution pending appeal. The Regional Trial Court should have entered judgment and remanded the records to the court of origin, where the motion for execution should have been filed. That portion of the February 1987 order granting the demolition is therefore void.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie as a substitute for the remedy of appeal lost through the party's own fault; the exception is where the right to appeal was lost through no fault of the party. A petition for certiorari must be filed within a reasonable time, measured from the commission of the acts complained of to the institution of the proceedings. A judgment in an ejectment case binds not only the defendant but also those claiming rights under the defendant, since no one may assert a right superior to that of the defendant in an ejectment suit. Finally, execution of an ejectment judgment belongs to the court of origin; the affirming appellate court must enter judgment and remand the records, and may itself order execution only pending appeal.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, but the portion of the February 1987 order granting the motion for demolition was set aside, without prejudice to its refiling in the Metropolitan Trial Court, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and execution of an ejectment judgment belongs to the court of origin. Examiners use this case to test the requisites and timeliness of certiorari, the binding effect of ejectment judgments on persons claiming under the defendant, and the rule on remand for execution.