SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251543. June 21, 2021.]
ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION [FORMERLY KNOWN AS ASB REALTY CORPORATION], petitioner,vs. QUANTUM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251543 (St. Francis Square Realty Corporation [formerly known as ASB Realty Corporation] vs. Quantum Hotels & Resorts, Inc.). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner St. Francis Square Realty Corporation's (petitioner) motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 30, 2019 Decision 2 and January 22, 2020 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154055 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the July 13, 2017 Order 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211 in Civil Case No. MC07-3251, which denied petitioner's motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution.
Case law provides that an action for injunction is an action in personam and therefore operates to bind the parties to the case, their privies, assignees and successors-in-interest and not the whole world. 5 Hence, since the complaint for injunction was filed by petitioner solely against respondent Quantum Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (respondent), the judgment and its execution shall only be binding upon petitioner and respondent, their privies, assignees and successors-in-interest. In the instant case, petitioner failed to show that Vanderbuild RE Holding Corporation (Vanderbuild) is the same entity, or an assignee, or successor-in-interest of respondent. Hence, as correctly ruled by the courts a quo Vanderbuild cannot be bound by the judgments and orders of the lower court in Civil Case No. MC07-3251. Clearly, this is more than sufficient justification for the CA's denial of petitioner's petition for mandamus. As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to show that it had a clear legal right to compel the RTC judge to issue the alias writ of execution against entities who were not parties to the case. 6
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-28.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and Rafael Antonio M. Santos; id. at 30-44.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and Rafael Antonio M. Santos; id. at 46-49.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Ofelia L. Calo; id. at 76-78.
5. See Spouses Lee v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil. 1050 (2006). See also Domagas v. Jensen, 489 Phil. 631 (2005); and Kawasaki Port Service Corporation v. Amores, 276 Phil. 249 (1991).
6.See Baguilat v. Alvarez, 814 Phil. 183 (2017), citation omitted.