THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241181. June 19, 2019.]
MANILA GAS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SATURNINO H. MEJIA AS PRESIDENT, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES SANTIAGO CUA AND LIBERTAD CUA, REPRESENTED BY ROGER CHUA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241181 (MANILA GAS CORPORATION, represented by SATURNINO H. MEJIA as President, petitioner, v. SPOUSES SANTIAGO CUA and LIBERTAD CUA, represented by ROGER CHUA, respondents). — The Court:
(1) GRANTS respondents' motion for an extension of ten (10) days from March 16, 2019 within which to file comment on the petition for review on certiorari; and
(2) NOTES said comment dated March 25, 2019.
For this Court's resolution is the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Manila Gas Corporation (Manila Gas), assailing the Court of Appeals March 21, 2018 Decision 2 and July 23, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 150976. 3
Manila Gas is a government-owned and controlled corporation owning the following adjoining parcels of land in the northeast corner of Paz Mendoza-Guazon (Otis) and Sancianco Streets, Paco, Manila: 4
|
Lot |
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. |
Area (sq. m.) |
|
6-B, Blk. 938 |
33924 |
7,431.20 |
|
3-A[,] Blk. 938 |
33924 |
2,231.40 |
|
4-B, Blk[.] 936 |
34304 |
2,608.20 |
|
1, Blk[.] 937 |
39483 |
3,198.80 5 (Emphasis in the original) |
In a November 9, 1982 Contract of Lease, Manila Gas leased to Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. (Eastern Shipping Lines) the three (3) parcels of land under Transfer Certificate Title Nos. 33924 and 34304 for 10 years beginning on November 15, 1982. 6 The contract read in part: CAIHTE
1. PERIOD OF LEASE — The lease shall be for ten (10) years commencing on November 15, 1982 and shall expire on November 15, 1992, unless the same be extended for another period subject to mutual agreement of both parties. However, should the LESSOR decide to sell the leased premises during the term of the leased period, he should notify the LESSEE at least thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice under the terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
2. PRE-TERMINATION — Paragraph 1 above notwithstanding, the parties hereto agree after the fifth year of the option/right to preterminate this Contract of Lease on any ground whatsoever without penalty provided all outstanding obligations have been settled and giving one to the other 120 days prior notice. 7
Upon learning that Manila Gas was among the corporations that the government had been aiming to privatize, Eastern Shipping Lines signified its intention to exercise its option under the first clause of the contract, which was to purchase the leased premises. However, Manila Gas informed Eastern Shipping Lines that this option may not be exercised due to the government's policy to privatize its shares or sell the entire interest of the National Development Company with Manila Gas, not just the latter's assets. Nonetheless, it assured Eastern Shipping Lines that the lease contract would be part of National Development Company's disclosures during the bidding. 8
Two (2) public biddings for the four (4) properties were later conducted, though both failed due to lack of interested parties. Manila Gas later conducted negotiated biddings, where notices were published in a newspaper of general circulation, and the submitted bids were opened in the presence of representatives from the Commission on Audit. 9
Both Eastern Shipping Lines and Santiago Cua (Cua) participated in the negotiated bidding, with Cua offering the higher bid of P80,218,000.00. However, Manila Gas was not able to award the properties to Cua after Eastern Shipping Lines invoked its alleged right of first refusal. 10
Manila Gas filed before the Municipal Trial Court a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Eastern Shipping Lines for its failure to vacate the properties despite being demanded to do so. 11 As the ejectment case was pending, Cua filed a Complaint for Injunction with Preliminary Injunction against Manila Gas "to restrain it from rebidding the properties, and to compel [it] and its officers to issue a Notice of Award in his favor." 12
Meanwhile, during the injunction proceedings, Manila Gas offered for sale to Cua the 3,198-square meter lot, described as Lot 1, Block 937 under Transfer Certificate Title No. 39483, 13 the only one (1) of four (4) properties not covered by the Contract of Lease with Eastern Shipping Lines. 14 In a June 29, 1992 Agreement 15 (the 1992 Agreement), the parties bound themselves to terms, including:
4. Essential to the agreement of MGC to sell the property under the terms hereof is the undertaking of Mr. Cua, which commitment he hereby reiterates and confirms to buy the remaining three (3) lots of MGC at the Northside or participate in the bidding to be conducted by MGC afterwards at a price not less that (sic) FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX & 49/100 (P5,176.49) per square meter, the price which he originally offered to buy the entire MGC Northside Property during the negotiated sale held on February 10, 1992. 16 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Cua subsequently filed a Notice of Dismissal to withdraw his Complaint against Manila Gas, which the Regional Trial Court accordingly dismissed. Eastern Shipping Lines timely intervened and appealed the dismissal before the Court of Appeals. 17 DETACa
After the Commission on Audit concurred with the sale, Cua and Manila Gas executed a Deed of Sale on October 28, 1993 over the property covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. 39483. 18
In its February 16, 1996 Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court Decision in the injunction proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed with the case. 19
Meanwhile, in the unlawful detainer case, the Municipal Trial Court decided in Manila Gas' favor and ordered Eastern Shipping Lines to vacate the leased premises. This judgment was later affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court 20 in Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals. 21
On October 24, 2003, Cua and Eastern Shipping Lines entered into a Compromise Agreement in the injunction case, waiving Eastern Shipping Lines' claim over Manila Gas' properties. 22
Cua then informed Manila Gas that he intended to exercise his option to purchase the three (3) remaining parcels of land in the amount of P5,176.49 per square meter. In response, Manila Gas stressed that P5,176.49 per square meter was the minimum bid price for the properties had it been sold in 1992, the same year the 3,198-square meter lot was sold. It stated that Cua had no "preferred right or option to purchase" 23 the three (3) properties. 24
Thus, Spouses Santiago and Libertad Cua (the Cua Spouses) filed before the Regional Trial Court a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages, seeking to compel Manila Gas to sell them the three (3) properties at P5,176.49 per square meter. 25
In its June 26, 2012 Decision, 26 the Regional Trial Court ruled in the Cua Spouses' favor, ordering Manila Gas to: (1) sell the disputed properties; (2) clear the lots from illegal settlers; and (3) pay attorney's fees. Manila Gas moved for new trial, but its Motion was denied. Both the Court of Appeals and this Court affirmed the trial court Decision. 27
Upon receipt of the Entry of Judgment, the Cua Spouses filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment by Specific Act. In its November 23, 2016 Resolution, 28 the Regional Trial Court granted the Motion, ruling as follows:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, the Motion for Execution by Specific Act pursuant to Section 10 (a), (b) and (c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is hereby GRANTED. Let the Decision of this Court, dated June 26, 2012, as affirmed by the Honorable Court of Appeals, and finally disposed by the Honorable Supreme Court be now enforced pursuant to Rule 39 Section 10(a), (b) and (c) of the Rules of Court.
Let the sale, conveyance, delivery of ownership and possession, and the registration of ownership of the subject properties of the defendant, particularly described as Lot No. 4-B and Lot No. 6-B covered by TCT No. 002-RT2013000991 (33924) and Lot No. 3-1 under TCT No. 34304, be executed pursuant to Rule 39 Section 10 (a), (b) and (c) of the Rules of Court, and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, dated June 27, 1992, with a purchased [sic] price of Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six and 49/100 (P5,176.49) per square meter or a total amount of Sixty Three Million Five Hundred Nineteen [Thousand] Six Hundred Seventy Three and 492/100 (P63,519,673.492) to be paid to the defendant. The payment to [sic] thereof shall be effected by tendering/consigning the Manila Manager's Check in the amount of P63,519,673.492 to the Office of the Clerk of Court-Regional Trial Court, Manila, for proper disposition relative to the satisfaction of paragraph one (1) of the Decision of this Court, dated June 26, 2012, without prejudice to the actual transfer of ownership and possession.
Both Sheriff Ronie L. Orajay and Alberto V. Reyes are hereby APPOINTED to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated September 2016, in behalf of herein defendant Manila Gas Corporation, represented by its President Saturnino H. Mejia, as the vendor, with herein plaintiff Santiago Cua married to Libertad S. Cua, as the vendee, in accordance with Rule 39 Section 10 (a) of the Rules of Court; and to execute the sale, convey the titles and deliver possession of the subject properties in favor of herein spouses-plaintiffs, represented in this case by Roger Cua. aDSIHc
The Register of Deeds is hereby DIRECTED to register the subject properties covered by TCT Nos. 002-RT2013000991 (33924) and 34302 in the name of the plaintiffs, SPOUSES SANTIAGO CUA AND LIBERTAD CUA, even without the owner's duplicate copy of the said titles.
SO ORDERED. 29 (Emphasis supplied)
Manila Gas filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Stay Execution, which was denied in the Regional Trial Court March 15, 2017 Resolution. 30
Aggrieved, Manila Gas filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
In its March 21, 2018 Decision, 31 the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition and affirmed the trial court's ruling. It found that Manila Gas was seeking a re-litigation of the issues already resolved in the final judgment. 32 The dispositive portion of its Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated 23 November 2016 and 15 March 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 39 are hereby affirmed.
SO ORDERED. 33 (Emphasis in the original)
Manila Gas moved for reconsideration, but the Motion was likewise denied in the Court of Appeals July 23, 2018 Resolution. 34
Hence, Manila Gas filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari35 against the Cua Spouses.
In its December 10, 2018 Resolution, 36 this Court required respondents to comment on the Petition within 10 days from receipt of the notice.
Respondents initially filed a Motion 37 to extend the time of filing its comment. Subsequently, they filed their Comment 38 on March 26, 2019.
Petitioner argues that the properties' selling price was neither "the subject of a judicial determination nor resolved on its merits." 39 It contends that what had been previously ruled upon was whether it may be compelled to sell the properties.
Petitioner argues that the Regional Trial Court merely directed the parties to comply with the 1992 Agreement, but did not determine the properties' price as the contract was vague on this point. It cites the 1992 Agreement, which stated that the sale was "subject to the required clearance on the transaction by the Commission on Audit" 40 and that respondent Cua reiterates and confirms his commitment to buy petitioner's three (3) other lots or participate in the bidding to be conducted "at a price not less than . . . P5,176.49 per square meter[.]" 41
Moreover, petitioner asserts that under the 1992 Agreement, it was allowed to offer the disputed properties for sale or bidding, "contrary to the [Court of Appeals'] finding that the selling price . . . is exactly at [P]5,176.49 per square meter." 42
Respondents counter that they have fulfilled the condition to the sale by securing the Commission on Audit's concurrence. They point out that the Commission on Audit's review in COA Decision No. 93-3020 — which was required in the 1992 Agreement — showed that the sale to them was advantageous to the government since the stipulated price is higher than the market value, as assessed by three (3) different appraisers. They argue that petitioner had no other means of paying its P18.1 million loan, an obligation where they stand to lose three (3) parcels of land used as collaterals. 43 ETHIDa
For this Court's resolution is the lone issue of whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in denying petitioner Manila Gas Corporation's Motion for Reconsideration and to Stay Execution when there was allegedly a variance in the trial court's judgment and the writ of execution.
This Petition is denied for lack of merit.
After scrutinizing the records, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
Before the Court of Appeals was a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Regional Trial Court's denial of petitioner's Motion to stay the execution of the judgment. The judgment, however, has attained finality, which was affirmed by this Court.
Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a judgment that has "lapse[d] into finality is immutable and unalterable." 44 Consequently, it may no longer be amended even if it is "to correct perceived errors of law or fact." 45 In De Ocampo v. Radio Philippines Network, Inc.: 46
It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory; nothing is more settled in law. Once a case is decided with finality, the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest. Accordingly, a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void.
This elementary rule finds basis in public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. Basic rationality dictates that there must be an end to litigation. Any contrary posturing renders justice inutile and reduces to futility the winning party's capacity to benefit from a resolution of the case. 47 (Citations omitted)
This doctrine does admit of exceptions:
(1) [T]he correction of clerical errors;
(2) [T]he so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party;
(3) [V]oid judgments; and
(4) [W]henever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. 48
However, we find no such circumstance here that entails an abandonment of the final judgment.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that in alleging a variance between the judgment and writ of execution, what petitioner seeks is a re-litigation of the issues that have already been resolved in the final judgment.
Moreover, petitioner is incorrect in contending that the selling price has not been subject of a judicial determination.
First, in the final judgment, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court, the Regional Trial Court resolved whether petitioner may be compelled to sell the disputed properties to respondents. This issue necessarily included the determination of the selling price. Accordingly, the trial court explicitly ordered the implementation of the terms of the agreement between the parties and expressly directed that petitioner sell to respondents the disputed properties at P5,176.49 per square meter. This issue has been resolved by the trial court, has been affirmed by this Court, and has attained finality.
Second, the Commission on Audit concurred with the sale in its COA Decision No. 93-3020. This was a condition to the sale in the 1992 Agreement. The Commission on Audit's favorable review of the contract centered on the price of P5,176.49 per square meter, which it compared to the values posited by three (3) other appraisals. 49
Third, petitioner had previously raised this very issue when it moved for new trial before the Regional Trial Court, 50 and in its appeal before the Court of Appeals. 51 cSEDTC
In any case, if petitioner regrets that it failed to present evidence on this matter in the proceedings below, its lapse may no longer be remedied at this point. The justification for this rule was illustrated in Mayor Vargas v. Cajucom: 52
Such grounds, however, go into the substance and merits of the case which had been decided with finality, and have no bearing on the validity of the issuance of the writ of execution. They raise issues which have been properly joined and addressed by the trial court in its decision. But at this late stage of execution, tackling those matters is a re-litigation of those issues, which no court can perform without offending well-settled principles. Essentially, arguments as to these issues are proper for an appeal, a remedy which none of the petitioners and the other judgment-obligors have taken. . . . Hence, to this Court, the final judgment has become the law of the case which is now immovable. The rudiments of fair play, justice, and due process require that parties cannot raise for the first time on appeal from a denial of a motion to quash a writ of execution issues which they could have raised but never did during the trial and even on appeal from the decision of the trial court. 53 (Citation omitted)
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit, and the Court of Appeals March 21, 2018 Decision and July 23, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 150976 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (PeraltaandHernando, JJ., on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-34.
2.Id. at 35-48-A. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 142-143. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 37.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 37.
8.Id. at 38.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 37.
14. Id. at 39. Block 973 was a typographical error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
15. Id. at 82-84.
16. Id. at 39.
17. Id.
18. Id. TCT No. 39482 was a typographical error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. 424 Phil. 544 (2002) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
22. Rollo, p. 40.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. Id. at 86-99.
27. Id. at 40.
28. Id. at 35, 41, and 71-79. The Decision was issued by Presiding Judge Noli C. Diaz of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Manila.
29. Id. at 35-36.
30. Id. at 41 and 80-81. The Resolution was issued by Presiding Judge Noli C. Diaz of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Manila.
31. Id. at 35-48-A.
32. Id. at 46.
33. Id. at 48.
34. Id. at 142-143.
35. Id. at 11-50.
36. Id. at 212.
37. Id. at 213-217.
38. Id. at 218-264.
39. Id. at 22.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 22-24.
42. Id. at 26.
43. Id. at 229-230.
44. Mercury Drug Corporation v. Spouses Huang, G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 221, 233 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
45. Id.
46. 775 Phil. 169 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
47. Id. at 176-177.
48. Mercury Drug Corporation v. Spouses Huang, G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 221, 234 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
49. Id. at 229.
50. Id.
51. Id. at 239-240.
52. 761 Phil. 43 (2015) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
53. Id. at 55-56.