Munoz V Yabut GR 142676
Munoz V Yabut GR 142676
Munoz V Yabut GR 142676
_______________
** Additional member per Special Order No. 994 dated May 27, 2011.
* FIRST DIVISION.
345
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
346
347
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
348
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), pp. 67-74; penned by Associate Justice Jainal
D. Rasul with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Eugenio S.
Labitoria, concurring.
2 Id., at p. 101.
349
firmed the Orders3 dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 (RTC-Branch 88) of
Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632. The RTC
dismissed Civil Case No. 8286, the forcible entry case
instituted by Muñoz against Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr.
(Atty. Yabut) and Samuel Go Chan before the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 33 of Quezon City; and
nullified the MeTC Order4 dated May 16, 1994, granting
Muñoz’s prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction which restored possession of the
subject property to Muñoz.
In G.R. No. 146718, Muñoz is praying for the reversal,
setting aside, and nullification of the Decision5 dated
September 29, 2000 and Resolution6 dated January 5, 2001
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019, which
affirmed the Orders7 dated August 21, 1995 and October 3,
1995 of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 95 (RTC-Branch 95)
in Civil Case No. Q-28580 denying Muñoz’s Motion for an
Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of
the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 532978 against
respondents Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and the
spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses
Chan).
FACTS
The subject property is a house and lot at No. 48 Scout
Madriñan St., Diliman, Quezon City, formerly owned by
Yee L. Ching. Yee L. Ching is married to Emilia M. Ching
_______________
350
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
351
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
11 Id., at p. 113.
12 Rollo (G.R. No. 146718), p. 101.
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 102-103.
15 Id., at pp. 104-105.
16 Id., at pp. 106-108.
353
pay the costs of suit. The court also hereby dismisses the rest of
the claims in [Muñoz’s] complaint, there being no satisfactory
warrant therefor.”19
_______________
17 Id.
18 Rollo (G.R. No. 142676), pp. 102-106.
19 Id., at p. 106.
354
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
21 Id., at p. 123.
22 Id., at p. 124.
23 Id., at pp. 125-126.
355
_______________
356
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
357
_______________
358
_______________
359
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
360
_______________
33 Id., at p. 94.
361
_______________
362
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
363
_______________
38 Id., at p. 293.
39 Id., at p. 130.
364
365
_______________
366
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
367
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real
owner.”43 (Emphases ours.)
_______________
43 Id., at p. 190.
44 Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 426 Phil. 61, 86-87; 375 SCRA
390, 408-409 (2002).
368
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
45 Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 332-333; 386 SCRA 301,
311 (2002).
46 G.R. No. 95921, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 422.
47 Id., at pp. 432-433.
369
_______________
48 Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 753, 765; 300 SCRA
565, 576 (1998).
49 492 Phil. 118; 451 SCRA 735 (2005), citing Pino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
94114, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 434, 445; Philippine National Bank v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 43972, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 735, 741; Duran v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 223 Phil. 88, 93-94; 138 SCRA 489, 494 (1985).
370
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
371
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
372
_______________
373
374
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
dated 22 April 1998, which directed the issuance of the 2nd Alias
Writ of Execution to eject non-parties (herein petitioners), the
respondent judge clearly went out of bounds and committed grave
abuse of discretion.
The nature of the injunction suit—Civil Case No. Q-45767—as
an action in personam in the RTC remains to be the same
whether it is elevated to the CA or to this Court for review. An
action in personam does not become an action in rem just because
a pronouncement confirming I.N.K.’s title to Lot 671 was made by
this Court in the Calalang decision. Final rulings may be made
by this Court, as the Highest Court of the Land, in actions
in personam but such rulings are binding only as against
the parties therein and not against the whole world. Here
lies another grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondent judge when he relied on the Calalang decision in his
assailed Order dated 07 May 1998 as if it were binding against
the whole world, saying:
“After evaluating the arguments of both parties, decisive
on the incident is the decision of the Supreme Court in favor
of the respondent I.N.K., represented by its titular and
spiritual head Bishop Eraño G. Manalo, sustaining its
ownership over the subject Lot 671. This Court could do no
less but to follow and give substantial meaning to its
ownership which shall include all dominical rights by way
of a Writ of Execution. To delay the issuance of such writ is
a denial of justice due the I.N.K.”
As a final word, this decision shall not be
misinterpreted as disturbing or modifying our ruling in
Calalang. The final ruling on I.N.K.’s ownership and title
is not at all affected. Private respondent I.N.K., as the true
and lawful
375
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
376
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
55 Bañes v. Lutheran Church in the Philippines, 511 Phil. 458, 479-480; 475
SCRA 13, 34 (2005).
56 Domalsin v. Valenciano, G.R. No. 158687, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 115,
132.
57 G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 492.
377
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
378
_______________
59 Go v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 214, 224; 297 SCRA 574, 583
(1998).
60 Silverio, Jr. v. Filipino Business Consultants, Inc., 504 Phil. 150,
158; 466 SCRA 584, 595 (2005).
61 United Coconut Planters Bank v. United Alloy Philippines
Corporation, 490 Phil. 353, 363; 449 SCRA 473, 474 (2005).
379
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
62 Bayview Hotel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119337, June 17,
1997, 273 SCRA 540, 547-548.
63 Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation v. Florentino, 372
Phil. 882, 890-891; 314 SCRA 197, 205 (1999).
380
381
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/32
1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774d1a186aa12f6fed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/32