Spouses Cham v. Wu Sen Woie

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 239465. December 2, 2021.]

SPOUSES GEORGE CHUA CHAM and JUDITH CHUA CHAM and ANTHONETTE TAN, petitioners,vs. WU SEN WOIE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 239465 (Spouses George Chua Cham and Judith Chua Cham and Anthonette Tan v. Wu Sen Woie). — Wu Sen Woei (Wu), a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan), filed a complaint against Andrew Tan (Andrew) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 91-55981. The complaint alleged that Wu and Andrew agreed to form a partnership but their plan did not materialize. Wu asked Andrew to return his contribution in the amount of P1,260,000.00, but Andrew refused. In his answer with a counterclaim, Andrew prayed for the return of USD25,000.00, representing the amount he erroneously paid Wu. On July 15, 1997, the RTC dismissed Wu's complaint and granted Andrew's counterclaim. 1 Aggrieved, Wu appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 10, 2000, the CA granted the appeal and ordered Andrew to refund to Wu his remaining partnership contribution, 2 thus:

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered ordering the defendant-appellee to pay appellant the balance of $45,000.00 or the equivalent thereof in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment, with legal interest thereon from September 1987 until fully paid. With costs against the defendant-appellee.

SO ORDERED. 3 (Emphases in the original.)

Andrew elevated the case to this Court docketed as G.R. No. 142401. On August 20, 2001, the Court affirmed the CA's findings. The Court's Decision 4 in G.R. No. 142401 became final and executory. However, the judgment in favor of Wu remained unsatisfied. 5 On May 2, 2008, Wu filed an action for the revival of judgment with the RTC of Dagupan City docketed as Civil Case No. 2008-0132-D. 6 In an Order dated May 11, 2009, the RTC granted the revival of judgment, thus:

WHEREFORE, the present action is granted. The Supreme Court Decision (G.R. No. 142401) promulgated on August 20, 2001 is hereby REVIVED.

SO ORDERED. 7

The RTC Order dated May 11, 2009 attained finality. On July 10, 2009, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution. Yet, the judgment remained unsatisfied. Thus, Wu filed a Motion for Examination of Judgment Obligor and the Obligors of Judgment Obligor. 8 Wu named George Chua Cham (George) and Anthonette Tan (Anthonette), the daughter of Andrew, as obligors. 9 Wu asserted that Andrew fraudulently transferred the ownership of their family business "New A.T. Commercial" to Anthonette, while he transferred a 2,530 square-meter lot to George. 10 In an Order dated March 16, 2010, the RTC Dagupan City ordered Andrew, Anthonette, and George to appear before the court for examination, 11 thus:

WHEREFORE, the motion is GRANTED. Ma. Anthonette Tan and George Chua Cham and defendant Andrew Tan are hereby directed to appear before this Court on May 7, 2010 (8:30 A.M.) and be examined concerning the return of the Writ of Execution.

SO ORDERED. 12

On January 18, 2012, the RTC found that Andrew fraudulently transferred his properties to George and Anthonette to the prejudice of Wu, and held these properties subject to a Writ of Execution, 13 thus:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds:

a. That the transfer of the business of defendant Andrew Tan to his own daughter Ma. Anthonette Tan under a [sic] new name "NEW A.T. COMMERCIAL" is a mere simulated transfer and void without any legal effect, thus, ownership over the said business still belongs to Andrew Tan and can be the subject of a writ of execution;

b. That the cancellation of TCT No. 51849 in the name of defendant Andrew Tan by way of Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 1, 2001 is without legal basis, the said deed being a simulated contract thus, null and void [ab initio] and can also be the subject of a writ of execution;

c. The Register of Deeds of Dagupan City, Pangasinan, is directed to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) if any that may have been issued in the name of George Chua Cham and to reinstate TCT No. 51848 in the name of defendant Andrew Tan.

SO ORDERED. 14

Andrew sought reconsideration but was denied. On the other hand, George and Anthonette filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA docketed as G.R. No. SP No. 124571 questioning the RTC Order dated January 18, 2012. 15 Meanwhile, a Writ of Execution 16 dated May 3, 2012 and Supplemental Writ of Execution 17 dated March 28, 2014 were subsequently issued to enforce the RTC Order dated January 18, 2012.

On March 19, 2014, the CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy. The CA ruled that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 can only be filed by parties to the original proceedings. Moreover, George and Anthonette did not avail a prior motion for reconsideration, which is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 18 Dissatisfied, George and Anthonette filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before this Court. On January 14, 2015, the Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari. In a Resolution dated April 4, 2016, the Court denied with finality George and Anthonette's motion for reconsideration.

Undeterred, George and Anthonette filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA seeking the nullification of the RTC Order dated January 18, 2012, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 147672. 19 George and Anthonette asserted that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over them and that they were deprived of due process. Also, their properties were taken without the benefit of a trial, as they were not parties to the case. Lastly, the RTC had no authority to cause the execution of their properties because they are not debtors of Andrew. 20

On October 24, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition. 21 George and Anthonette moved for a reconsideration but was denied. The CA pointed out that George and Anthonette were estopped from resorting to a Petition for Annulment of Judgment since they previously filed a Petition for Certiorari. 22 Hence, this recourse. George and Anthonette assert that the CA erred in dismissing their Petition for Annulment of Judgment. They reiterate that the RTC Dagupan City did not acquire jurisdiction over them and that they were deprived of due process when their properties were levied upon. 23 For his part, Wu claims that George and Anthonette's arguments have already been dealt with and resolved by the CA. 24

The petition is unmeritorious.

Prefatorily, we stress that an action to annul a final judgment is equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases. 25 Sections 1 26 and 2 27 of Rule 47 impose strict conditions to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory. 28 Moreover, the rule is explicit that this action may not be invoked where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost, or where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence. 29 Also, jurisprudence provides that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is only applicable to final judgments, orders, and resolutions. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do. In contrast, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely but leaves something to be done upon its merits. 30

In Guiang v. Co, 31 the Court declared that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is not proper to annul an auction sale or Writ of Execution. Similarly, in Baclaran Marketing Corp. v. Nieva, 32 the Court ruled that an order implementing a Writ of Execution issued over certain real properties is also not a final order as it merely enforces a judicial process over an identified object. It does not involve an adjudication on the merits or determination of the rights of the parties. Here, George and Anthonette seek the annulment of the RTC Order dated January 18, 2012 which was issued in the course of the execution proceedings of the revived judgment. Ultimately, George and Anthonette pray for the reversion of their properties sold by public auction in satisfaction of the money judgment against Andrew. To recall, the assailed order authorized the levy of the properties to satisfy the revived judgment. It did not determine the rights and obligations of the parties as it merely relates to the satisfaction of the final and executory judgment rendered against Andrew. Clearly, the RTC Order dated January 18, 2012, as well as the subsequent auction sales, were merely part of the judicial process to enforce and satisfy the money judgment. Applying the rulings in Guiang and Baclaran Marketing Corp., these orders cannot be the proper subject of a Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

Notably, there are other remedies available to George and Anthonette to vindicate their property claims as third parties to the case. Any third person adversely affected by the mistaken levy of his property to answer for another man's debt may validly assail such levy through the remedies provided for by Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The third party may avail of the remedies of (1) terceria to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor; and (2) independent "separate action" to vindicate their claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. 33 To question the validity of the auction sale proceedings and transfer to an unqualified party, there are other remedies through a separate action of annulment of the warrant of levy and public auction sale before the RTC. Again, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no available or other adequate remedy. In this case, there are clearly several remedies that are available to George and Anthonette. On this point, we reiterate that procedural rules are not to be treated as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. 34 The rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. 35

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Resolution dated October 24, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 147672 is AFFIRMED.

The compliance of Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, counsel for respondent, with the Show Cause Resolution dated March 17, 2021, is NOTED; and Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista is hereby required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a verified declaration of the compliance pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 149-157.

2.Id. at 159-167.

3.Id. at 167.

4.Id. at 169-179.

5.Id. at 183-185.

6.Id. at 180-182.

7.Id. at 183.

8.Id. at 186-187.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 43-44.

12.Id. at 44.

13.Id. at 138-143.

14.Id. at 147-148.

15.Id. at 62-69.

16.Id. at 189-190.

17.Id. at 191-192.

18.Id. at 74-84.

19.Id. at 124-130.

20.Id. at 128-130.

21.Id. at 28-34. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Franchito N. Diamante.

22.Id. at 113-116.

23.Id. at 12-24.

24.Id. at 220-224.

25.Veneracion v. Mancilla, 528 Phil. 309, 323 (2006); and Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., 512 Phil. 253, 263 (2005).

26. Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

27. Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

28.Cerezo v. Tuazon, 469 Phil. 1020, 1041 (2004).

29.Heirs of Mauraso v. Obliosca, 566 Phil. 397, 406 (2008).

30.Baclaran Marketing Corp. v. Nieva, 809 Phil. 92, 100-101 (2017).

31. 479 Phil. 473, 480 (2004).

32.Supra at 101.

33.Gomez v. Sta. Ines, 509 Phil. 602, 616-617 (2005).

34.Santos v. Court of Appeals, 275 Phil. 894, 898 (1991).

35.Le Soleil Int'l. Logistics Co., Inc., et al. v. Sanchez, et al., 769 Phil. 466, 473 (2015).