Leyson v. YL Finance Corp.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 259119. September 12, 2022-2022.]

RAMONCITO C. LEYSON, petitioner, vs. YL FINANCE CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 12, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 259119 (Ramoncito C. Leyson vs. YL Finance Corporation). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court vociferates against the Decision2 dated 28 October 2020 and the Resolution3 dated 3 November 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City, in CA-G.R. SP No. 09017-MIN. The impugned Decision affirmed the Decision 4 dated 18 July 2018 and the Resolution 5 dated 3 October 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 54, which concurred with the Decision 6 dated 20 April 2017 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City, Branch 4 granting the prayer of respondent YL Finance Corporation to enforce its lessor's lien against petitioner Ramoncito C. Leyson and ordering the sale at public auction of a Suzuki motor vehicle bearing license plate number LCD-289. On the other hand, the assailed Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration of the challenged Decision.

The Petition is devoid of merit.

Preliminarily, it must be stressed that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition filed before the Court. 7 Whether or not the Suzuki motor vehicle ordered to be sold at public auction was owned by petitioner, as judgment debtor, is indubitably a factual question. While jurisprudence has provided exceptional circumstances where the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues, 8 none of these exceptions obtain in the case at bench.

Additionally, the Court agrees with the appellate court in refusing to entertain petitioner's belated defense of non-ownership of the Suzuki motor vehicle. It is a shopworn rule that a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the trial court will not be permitted to change the theory on appeal. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. 9 Ruling otherwise would offend the basic considerations of due process.

Besides, any third party claiming to be the owner of property levied to be sold at public auction to answer for the obligation of a judgment debtor is not without remedy. Section 16 of Rule 39 10 of the Rules of Court gives ample protection to the third-party claimant in such cases.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 28 October 2020 and the Resolution dated 3 November 2021 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 09017-MIN are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 5-14.

2.Id. at 16-25. Penned by Associate Justice Lily V. Biton and concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Richard D. Mordeno, concurring.

3.Id. at 29-30.

4.Id. at 53-56. Penned by Presiding Judge Melinda Alconcel-Dayanghirang.

5.Id. at 59-61.

6.Id. at 47-52. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Maria Sophia T. Palma Gil-Torrejos.

7. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

8. (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court;

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;

(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or

(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; see Navaja v. De Castro, 761 Phil. 142, 155 (2015).

9. See Tensuan vs. Heirs of Vasquez, G.R. No. 204992, 8 September 2020.

10. Section 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. — If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and copy thereof, upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnity the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.

The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.

When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose. (Emphases supplied.)