[R]espondents are directed to vacate the portion of Lot No. 1, Psu-08-000235 covered by OCT No. 2496 and subject of the final decree of registration which, [up to the] present, said respondents are still possessing pursuant to the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals and as particularly defined in the Commissioner's report submitted on August 3, 1989 x x x.
Respondents are reminded that under Rule 71 of the New Rules of Court, failure on their part to so obey this order may make them liable for contempt of this Court.
SO ORDERED.12
It appearing from the records that respondents Eugenio Basbas, Teofilo Aras, Gervacio Basbas, Rufino Aras, Ismael Aras, Eugenio Aras, Simfronio Aras, Feliciano Aras, Rosita Aras and Eugenio Basbas[,] Jr. are parties to the present case, they having been the principal oppositors to the petition filed by the applicants as shown in the records, pages 34, 35 and 36, Vol. 1 x x x13 (Emphasis supplied.)
x x x x
4. On March 22, 1979, the Honorable Judge Numeriano Estenzo rendered a decision in the above-mentioned Land Registration [c]ase in favor of the petitioners x x x and against the oppositors, the dispositive portion of said decision reads:'WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered x x x [and] the land described under Plan PSU-08-000235 dated September 10, 1973 of Geodetic Engineer Nestorio Encenzo already APPROVED by the Acting Regional Director on June 27, 1974 is hereby adjudicated and registered in the names of the Spouses ROBERTO SAYSON and BEATA O. SAYSON, of legal ages, Filipinos, spouses and residents of Campokpok, Tabango, Leyte, Philippines and as soon as this decision becomes final, let a decree of registration be issued by the Land Registration Commission.
SO ORDERED.' (x x x)
5. From the above decision the oppositors (defendants herein) appealed;
6. On July 24, 1985, the Honorable Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion [of which] reads:'WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding no merit in this appeal the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.'
and the said decision has become final and executory on August 21, 1985 per Entry of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals x x x.
7. That consequently, on September 17, 1986 an Original Certificate of Title No. N-2496 was issued in the names of Roberto Sayson and Beata O. Sayson, pursuant to Decree No. N-191615, by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Leyte;
8. That on motion, the Honorable Court, on November 21, 1985, issued a Writ of Possession which for some reason or [another] was not satisfied, so that the Honorable Court, on April 7, 1989 - acting on an ex-parte motion dated April 6, 1989 - directed the issuance of an Alias Writ of Possession;
9. That the Deputy Sheriff of this Court, Mr. Placid[o] Cayco tendered the Alias Writ of Possession to the oppositors, particularly to Mr. Eugenio Basbas, Sr. and Eugenio Basbas, Jr. who, as the Deputy Sheriff stated in his Progress Report dated May 18, 1989 'did not believe and obey the CFI Decision and the decision of the Court of Appeals' and 'x x x [t]hey demanded a relocation survey to determine the exact location of applicants' (complainant[s] herein) property described in the alias writ of possession.' x x x;
10. That on June 16, 1989, the Honorable Court, acting on the Progress Report of Deputy Sheriff Placido Cayco, issued an Order on even date appointing Geodetic Engineer Jose A. Tahil as Court Commissioner specifically 'to relocate Lot No. 1, Plan Psu-08-000235, LRC No. 0-177, Land Reg. Record No. N51830 x x x' This Order was dictated in open court in the presence of Mr. Eugenio Basbas, Sr. and Eugenio Basbas, Jr. who had both objected to the Writ of Possession, and their counsel Atty. Evargisto Escalon, and Attorney Demetrio D. Sarit, counsel for the applicants. x x x
11. That pursuant to the [O]rder dated June 16, 1989 x x x the Court assigned Commissioner, Engr. Jose A. Tahil, submitted his report stating that 'the job assigned to the commissioner was already fully and peacefully accomplished; that his 'findings [show] that all points are existing and intact on the field except x x x corner 3 of said lot x x x which at present [is] already defined and indicated on the ground.' The commissioner also attached a Sketch Plan of the land to his report. x x x
12. That, finally, the Honorable Court, on September 13, 1989 issued an Order approving the Commissioner's Report and further stated:[R]espondents (defendants herein) are directed to vacate the portion of Lot No. 1, Psu-08-000235 covered by OCT No. 2496 and subject of final decree of registration which, until [the] present, said respondents are still possessing, pursuant to the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals and as particularly [defined] in the Commissioner's Report submitted on August 3, 1989 x x x
Respondents are reminded that under Rule 71 of the New Rules of Court, failure on their part to so obey this Order may make them liable for contempt of this Court.21
2. All the defendants named above are x x x of legal age and are residents of Balagtas, Matag-ob, Leyte where they may be served summons and other court processes; while defendant-spouses Pablito Basarte and Marcelina Basbas Basarte were not named as among the oppositors in the land registration case whose decision is herein sought to be revived, said spouses are nonetheless participating in the harvest, processing and sale of the coconuts with the other defendants named above;
3. Plaintiffs Beata Sayson and her late husband, Roberto Sayson are petitioners in Land Registration Case No. 0-177 for the registration of a parcel of agricultural land situated in Barrio Balagtas, Matag-ob, Leyte, filed on September 2, 1976 with the then Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch V, Ormoc City. The above-named defendants, namely: Eugenio Basbas, Teofilo Aras, Gervacio Basbas, Rufino Aras, Ismael Aras, Eugenio Aras, Simfronio Aras, Feliciano Aras, Rosita Aras and Eugenio Basbas, Jr. were oppositors to the application;22
x x x x
13. That despite this admonition in the [September 13, 1989] [O]rder that they could be cited for contempt of Court, the respondents, defendants herein, had continuously defied the same and this notwithstanding the fact that it was upon their own demands and insistence that a relocation survey be made on the premises subject of this case before they would obey the alias writ of possession x x x and that the finding[s] of the Court[-]appointed Commissioner Engr. Jose A. Tahil show that the oppositors-respondents did [encroach] on the land of plaintiffs herein;
14. That this [September 13, 1989] Order however was not implemented thru a Writ of Execution within the five-year period from the time the Order became final because of the retirement of Deputy Sheriff Placido Cayco and by reason also of the fact that the then Clerk of Court, Atty. Constantino A. Trias, Jr. who was also the ex-officio Provincial Sheriff was not physically fit to hike thru the mountains and hills of Brgy. Balagtas where the property and the defendants therein reside due to his heart condition;
15. That despite their knowledge of the Court['s] [September 13, 1989] Order, the same [having been] dictated in open court, the respondents had continued to occupy the land of the plaintiffs and for more than five (5) years since this Order for them to vacate the land in question was issued, they had harvested the coconuts growing thereon and such other produce of the land herein involved. And until the decision of the Court of Appeals is executed, plaintiff will continue to suffer losses and damages by reason of defendants' unlawful occupation and possession and their continued harvesting of the produce of this land of the herein plaintiffs.23
In today's pre-trial conference, manifestations and counter-manifestations were exchanged. All the parties and their counsels are present. x x x [P]laintiffs' counsel presented a Special Power of Attorney by Beata Sayson but the Court observed that same was not duly acknowledged before the Philippine Consulate or Embassy in Canada. However, this matter is not so important[.] [W]hen the Court tried to dig and discuss with the parties on their real positions, it turned out that the plaintiffs are seeking revival of the previous final judgment, the original parties of which were Eugenio Basbas, Teofilo Aras and Rufino Aras. Eugenio and Teofilo are all dead, leaving Rufino Aras alive. It is quite complicated considering that in this action, the plaintiffs relied on the Order of this Court penned by the previous judge dated September 13, 1989 which was made after or consequent to the final judgment aforementioned, wherein the names of the other defendants were mentioned in the body thereof. After considering the merits of the various contentions, the Court is of the view that the complaint had to limit itself to the names of the original parties appearing in the original judgment now being sought for revival. The interest of the plaintiffs in seeking implementation or execution of the judgment sought to be revived which would involve the other defendants can be taken when the judgment shall have been revived.
In this connection therefore and as part of the matters to be made part in the pre-trial conference, in the exercise of the authority granted to it by law, this Court directs the plaintiffs to make the necessary amendment and/or to submit a manifestation first to this Court on the point above raised regarding amendment of the designation of the parties having in mind the objection of the defendants who manifested that should there be an amendment, this counter-claim shall be disregarded since they were brought in unnecessarily in this kind of action.
Plaintiffs therefore are given a period of ten (10) days from today within which to submit the requisite manifestation furnishing copy thereof to the defendant who upon receipt shall also be given a period of ten (10) days within which this Court will make the necessary resolution before allowing any amendment.
Hold the pre-trial conference in abeyance.
SO ORDERED. 31 (Emphasis supplied.)
The Manifestation of plaintiffs and the Counter-Manifestation of defendants having already been submitted and duly noted, the Court hereby directs that henceforth in the denomination of this case, the names of the original parties, Eugenio Basbas and Teofilo Aras (in Land Registration Case No. 0-177) shall still remain to be so stated as defendants for purposes of the present case but with additional names of their respective heirs to be included and stated immediately after each name as heirs in substitution, namely: for Eugenio Basbas - 1) Gervacio Basbas, 2) Marcelina Basbas Basarte, and 3) Eugenio Basbas, Jr.; and for Teofilo Aras - 1) Ismael Aras, 2) Vicente Aras, 3) Ligaya Aras, 4) Rosendo Aras, and 5) Daina Aras.
Since from the records, only Gervacio Basbas, Eugenio Basbas, Jr. and Ismael Aras were duly served with summons, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to serve summons on the other heirs, namely: Marcelina Basbas Basarte, Vicente Aras, Ligaya Aras, Rosendo Aras, and Daina Aras.
x x x x36
Controverted Stipulations:
- That defendants are not enjoying the produce of the land because there are period[s] wherein the fruits were subject of theft and the same is now pending at the Municipal Trial Court of Matag-ob;
- That [even] before the start of the original case, the original defendants referring to the late Eugenio Basbas, Sr. and Teofilo Aras, [and] Rufino Aras were occupying the property and they were succeeded by the respective heirs of the deceased Eugenio Basbas, Sr. and Teofilo Aras [sic];
- That plaintiff Teofilo Aras, Sr. has a daughter named Fedeliza Aras;
Issues
- Whether x x x the plaintiffs are entitled to revival of judgment in the earlier [land registration] case;
- Whether x x x the defendants except for defendant Rufino Aras are the proper parties in the present action;
- Whether x x x the complaint states a cause of action;
- Whether x x x defendants are entitled to their counterclaim, and;
- Whether judgment on the pleadings is allowed or is tenable.39
Wherefore, finding merit in the motion, judgment is hereby rendered for and in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants ordering the revival of the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 24, 1985 affirming the decree of registration of this Court in the decision of the Land Registration Case No. 0-177 dated March 22, 1979, and of the final Order of this Court dated September 13, 1989 and upon finality of this Order, ordering the issuance of Writ of Possession for the lot made subject of the decision. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.43
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is DENIED. The May 21, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.47
1. The Honorable Court of Appeals clearly committed serious errors of law in its decision and Resolution dated February 17, 2004 and April 19, 2006 when it affirmed the Order of the Regional Trial Court dated May 21, 2001 and declared that no reversible error was committed by the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City in granting respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary judgment;
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals clearly committed serious errors of law in its Decision and Resolution dated February 17, 2004 and April 19, 2006 when it affirmed the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City dated May 21, 2001 and declared that petitioners' argument that respondents' complaint failed to state a cause of action has no merit.
3. The Honorable Court of Appeals clearly committed serious errors of law when it affirmed the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City which ordered the revival of the Judgment of this Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 66541 entitled Beata Sayson and Roberto Sayson vs. Eugenio Basbas, et al., despite the fact that this was not the judgment sought to be revived in Civil Case No. 3312-0;
4. The Honorable Court of Appeals clearly committed serious errors of law in ruling that the duly notarized Special Power of Attorney in favor of Roberto Sayson[,] Jr. is valid and the latter is authorized to represent his mother, Beata Sayson[,] which is contrary to the ruling in the case of ANGELITA LOPEZ, represented by PRISCILLA L. TY vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY x x x (G.R. No. 77008, December 29, 1987).50
The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party's answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist - i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer - but the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. x x x.
The body of the Complaint as well as the prayer mentioned about the executory decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 24, 1985 that had to be finally implemented. So it appears to this Court that the Complaint does not alone invoke or use as subject thereof the Order of this Court which would implement the decision or judgment regarding the land in question. The Rules of Court referring to the execution of judgment, particularly Rule 39, Sec. 6, provides a mechanism by which the judgment that had not been enforced within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date the said judgment has become final and executory could be enforced. In fact, the rule states: "...judgment may be enforced by action."
So in this Complaint, what is sought is the enforcement of a judgment and the Order of this Court dated September 13, 1989 is part of the process to enforce that judgment. To the mind of the Court, therefore, the Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action.58
Endnotes:
* In lieu of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin per Raffle dated August 8, 2011.
1 CA rollo, pp. 102-109; penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this Court).
2 Records, pp. 440-442; penned by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
3 CA rollo, p. 121.
4 See first page of CA Decision dated July 24, 1985 in CA-G.R. No. 66541, records, p. 8.
5 Id. at 8-13; penned by Associate Justice Leonor Ines Luciano and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., and Associate Justices Edgardo P. Caguioa and Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa.
6 See Entry of Judgment, id. at 14.
7 Id. at 15.
8 See the (Sheriff's) Progress Report, id. at 16-17.
9 See RTC Order dated June 16, 1989, id. at 18.
10 Id. at 21-22.
11 Id. at 19-20.
12 Id. at 22.
13 Id. at 21.
14 Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 6 provides:
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. x x x.
15 Records, pp. 1-7.
16 The case was later transferred to Branch 35 of RTC, Ormoc City per Order dated September 22, 1997, id. at 80.
17 Later amended to read as "Basarte" per Order dated July 3, 1998, id. at 120.
18 Id. at 30-32.
19 See the RTC's Order dated May 9, 1997, id. at 49-50.
20 Id. at 73-77.
21 Id. at 2-5.
22 Id. at 1-2
23 Id. at 5-6.
24 See Notice of Pre-Trial, id. at 85.
25 See Orders dated March 9, 1998 & May 20, 1998, id. at 102 & 112 respectively; Alias Summons dated June 1, 1998, id. at 113; and Officer's Return, id. at 115. See also the Summons served to the spouses Basarte, id. at 148, and the Officer's Return thereof, id. at 147, after the spouses' surname was amended to read as spouses Basarte instead as Sabarte.
26 See Simfronio's Manifestation and Second Manifestation, id. at 116-119.
27 Id. at 149-151.
28 See RTC Order dated February 9, 1999, id. at 186.
29 Id. at 253.
30 Id. at 215-216.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 231-233.
33 One of the Spouses Basarte.
34 Records, pp. 237-239.
35 Id. at 250.
36 Id.
37 See 1st page of Pre-Trial Order, id. at 348. The Rufino Aras declared in default in said Pre-Trial Order is actually Rosendo Aras. Rufino filed his Answer together with Gervacio and the others.
38 Id. at 348-350.
39 Id. at 349.
40 Id. at 377-382.
41 Id. at 435-439.
42 Id. at 440-442
43 Id. at 442.
44 Id. at 445.
45 Id. at 450.
46 Supra note 1.
47 CA rollo, p. 93.
48 Id. at 95-101.
49 Supra note 3.
50 Rollo, p. 19.
51 240 Phil. 811 (1987); In this case, an SPA was executed abroad by the real party in interest in favor of a representative here in the Philippines to initiate an action for ejectment. Finding said SPA to be without the authentication of an officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that foreign country pursuant to Sec. 25, Rule 132 of the old Rules of Court (now Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, see footnote 63), this Court declared the same as not admissible in evidence. Hence, the litigation was considered not commenced by the real party-in-interest or by one duly authorized to do so, making the entire proceedings before the lower courts null and void.
52 G.R. No. 168809, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 538, 550-551.
53 398 Phil. 733,740 (2000).
54 Tan v. De la Vega, supra note 52 at 545.
55 Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 492 Phil.106, 116 (2005).
56 Particularly the (1) Complaint, records, pp. 1-7; (2) Answer, id. at 73-77; (3) respondents' Manifestation with Prayer, id. at 231-233; and (4) petitioners' Counter-Manifestation, id. at 237-239.
57 Id. at 49-50.
58 Id. at 49.
59 Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 469, 487 citing Baloloy v. Hular, 481 Phil. 398, (2004) and Adlawan v. Adlawan, G.R. No. 161916, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 275, 283.
60 Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. - The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be caused for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. x x x.