ANG YU ASUNCION, ARTHUR GO AND KEH TIONG, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BUEN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 109125
- Promulgated: 1994-12-02
- Ponente: Vitug, J.
Doctrine
A purchaser not impleaded in the underlying action cannot be subjected to a writ of execution or ousted from ownership without being afforded its day in court.
Courts should not decree the execution of a deed of sale affecting third-party rights when such decree would affect parties not before the court.
An appellate court's setting aside of trial-court execution orders will be upheld when the execution would improperly affect nonparties and due process concerns exist.
Facts
The petition challenges the Court of Appeals decision dated 04 December 1991 that set aside orders of execution of the trial court dated 30 August 1991 and 27 September 1991 in Civil Case No. 87-41058.
This Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 21123 affirmed with modification the lower court's judgment granting plaintiffs a right of first refusal as to the property, extending it to sales exceeding Eleven Million pesos.
While the petition was pending here, on 15 November 1990 the Cu Unjieng spouses executed a Deed of Sale transferring the property to Buen Realty Development Corporation subject to stated terms.
The trial court ordered execution directing defendants to execute a Deed of Sale in favor of the plaintiffs for P15,000,000 and ordered cancellation of the title issued to Buen Realty; a writ of execution issued on 27 September 1991.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the trial court's orders of execution directing transfer of the property and cancellation of Buen Realty's title.
Whether Buen Realty, an alleged purchaser not impleaded in Civil Case No. 87-41058, can be bound by the trial court's writ of execution or ousted from ownership without being afforded its day in court.
Whether the trial court could decree the execution of any deed of sale between the Cu Unjiengs and petitioners at the time of its orders.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in setting aside the questioned orders dated 30 August 1991 and 27 September 1991; costs against petitioners.
Buen Realty, not being impleaded in Civil Case No. 87-41058, cannot be bound by the writ of execution or ousted from ownership without being afforded due process (its day in court).
The Court held the trial court could not have decreed then the execution of any deed of sale between the Cu Unjiengs and petitioners.
Keywords
G.R. No. 109125, Specific Performance, contract of sale, right of first refusal, summary judgment, CA-G.R. SP No. 26345, Civil Case No. 87-41058, CA-G.R. CV No. 21123, petition for review on certiorari, Deed of Sale, TCT No. 105254/T-881, TCT No. 195816, lis pendens, Motion for Execution, final and executory, Entry of Judgment, meeting of the minds, material fact, legal justification, property