092 NHA vs EVANGELISTA

G.R. No. 140945 May 16, 2005

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
JOSE EVANGELISTA, respondent.
EVANGELISTA, respondent.

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINE!, J."

 A person
person who was not impleaded in the complaint
complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein,
for no man shall be affected by a proceedin in which he is a straner .!

"his refers to the petition for review on certiorari  filed

 filed by the National #ousin Authority assailin the
decision  of the Court of Appeals %CA& in CA'(.). S* No. +!-, rantin respondents petition for 
$

annulment of /udment. "he dispositive portion of the decision reads0

1#E)E2O)
1#E)E 2O)E,E, th
the
e pe
peti
titi
tion
on is r
rant
anted
ed.. "h
"he
e as
assa
saile
iled
d pa
part
rt of pa
para
rar
rap
aph
h No
No.. 3 of th
the
e
dispositive portion of the decision dated November $4, !44+ of the )eional "rial Court, 5r.
CIII, 6ue7on City in Civil Case No. 6'4!'!889! is hereby declared void, non'bindin and
inapplicable in so far as petitioners "C" No. !$$4-- is concerned.

:et a cop
copyy her
hereof
eof be fur
furnis
nished
hed the )e
)eist
ister
er of Dee
Deeds
ds of 6ue
6ue7on
7on City for the proper 
proper 
annotation. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO O)DE)ED.
O)DE)ED.3

2AC"S0

N#A filed a case for recovery of property doc;eted as Civil Case No. 6'4!'!889!. + Said case
involves a real property measurin 4!+.+8 s<uare meters and located in =. :una )oad, 6ue7on City,
oriin
oriinally
ally awa
awarde
rdedd in !4
!4>
> by the *eo
*eople
ples
s #om
#omesi
esite
te and #ou
#ousin
sin
 Cor
Corpor
porati
ation
on %pe
%petit
tition
ioners
ers
predecessor& to a certain Adela Salindon.

 After the death of Salindon, her heirs e?ecuted an e?tra'/udicial settlement where the property was
transferre
transferredd to Arsenio 2lorendo, @r., ilaros 2loren
2lorendo,
do, 5eatr
5eatri7
i7 2loren
2lorendo
do and Elois
Eloisa
a 2loren
2lorendo'
do'
Bulphonpatana. #owever, in a decision in (.). No. :'8+--, entitled Arsenio 2lorendo, @r., et al.
vs. #on. *erpetuo D. Coloma, *residin @ude of 5ranch =II, City Court of 6ue7on City, et al.,
rendered
rende red by the Court on ay !4, !4>-, the award in favor of Salin
Salindon
don was nullified and set aside
for havin been issued in e?cess of /urisdiction and with rave abuse of discretion, and petitioner 
was declared the owner of the property.

Despite said decision, the property was auctioned off by the 6ue7on City "reasurers Office on April
$3, !4>, for unpaid real property ta?es by the 2lorendos. "he hihest bidder was :uisito Sarte.
5ecause the )eister of Deeds refused to reister the final deed of sale issued by the City
"reasurer, Sarte filed a petition for issuance of title and confirmation of sale, which was ranted by
the )eional "rial Court of 6ue7on City %5ranch >-&. Conse<uently, the )eister of Deeds issued
"ransfer Certificate of "itle %"C"& No. $>!>$ in the name of Sarte, who divided the property into :ot
!'A, measurin +98.+8 s<uare meters and covered by "C" No. !8>898, and :ot !'5, measurin 3-+
s<uare meters and covered by "C" No. !8>89!. 

It was in !44! that petitioner filed Civil Case No. 6'4!'!889! with Sarte, the City "reasurer of 
6ue7on City and the 6ue7on City )eister of Deeds, as defendants. 1hile the case was pendin,
Sarte e?ecuted in favor of respondent @ose Evanelista, a Deed of Assinment dated December $,
!44-, coverin :ot !'A. 9 "C" No. !8>898 was cancelled and "C" No. !$$4-- was issued in the
name of respondent on December $!, !44-. Subse<uently, the )eister of Deeds annotated on "C"
No. !$$4-- an Affidavit of Adverse Claim of petitioner.

On ay !, !44+, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file supplemental complaint in Civil Case No.
6'4!'!889!, see;in to include respondent Evanelista, Northern Star Ari'5usiness Corporation
and 5*I Aricultural Development 5an; as defendants. "he proposed additional defendants were
the subse<uent purchasers of :ots !'A and !'5. !8 "he trial court, however, denied the motion in its
Order dated ay !9, !44+.!!

"hus, petitioner, on ay 3!, !44+, filed before the )eional "rial Court of 6ue7on City %5ranch >$& a
complaint for Annulment of Deed of Assinment, Deed of Absolute Sale, )eal Estate ortae,
Cancellation of "C" Nos. !$$4-- and !$34, and Damaes, aainst Sarte, respondent
Evanelista, Northern Star Ari'5usiness Corporation, 5*I Aricultural Development 5an; and the
)eister of Deeds of 6ue7on City, doc;eted as Civil Case No. 6'4+'$34-8. !$

)"C dismissed this second case on the round of litis pendencia.

In a decision dated November $4, !44+, the trial court, in Civil Case No. 6'4!'!889!, rendered its
decision in favor of petitioner, with the followin dispositive portion0

 ACCO)DIN(:, /udment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff National #ousin

 Authority as follows0

!. "he auction sale is null and void

$. "C" No. $>!>$ subse<uently issued in the name of defendant :uisito Sarte is hereby null
and void.

#. A$y %&a$s'(&s, ass)*$+($%, sa( o& +o&%*a*( o' -a%(v(& $a%/&( o' %( a&( o' 
a$ s/3(% o' %)s as( +a( 3y ('($a$% L/)s)%o Sa&%( o& )s(& a*($%s o& ass)*$s
3('o&( o& /&)$* %( ($($y o' %( )$s%a$% as( a&( (&(3y (a&( $/ a$ vo),
%o*(%(& -)% a$y %&a$s'(& (&%)')a%(s o' %)%( )ss/( )$ o$$(%)o$ -)% %( a'o&(sa)
%&a$sa%)o$s 3y %( R(*)s%(& o' ((s o' 7/(8o$ )%y -o )s ):(-)s( o&(&( %o
a$( o& a/s( %( a$(a%)o$ o' s/ TTs;
purchaser of the sub/ect property from Sarte, and title was already transferred to him. It will be the
heiht of ine<uity to allow respondents title to be nullified without bein iven the opportunity to
present any evidence in support of his ostensible ownership of the property. uch more, it is
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional uarantee that no person shall be deprived of property
without due process of law. $- Clearly, the trial courts /udment is void insofar as pararaph 3 of its
dispositive portion is concerned.

*etitioner arues that it should not bear the conse<uence of the trial courts denial of its motion to
include respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. 6'4!'!889!. "rue, it was not petitioners fault that
respondent was not made a party to the case. 5ut li;ewise, it was not respondents fault that he was
not iven the opportunity to present his side of the story. 1hatever prompted the trial court to deny
petitioners motion to include respondent as defendant is not for the Court to reason why. *etitioner 
could have brouht the trial courts denial to the CA on certiorari  but it did not. Instead, it filed Civil
Case No. 6'4+'$34-8 for Annulment of Deed of Assinment, Deed of Absolute Sale, )eal Estate
ortae, Cancellation of "C" Nos. !$$4-- and !$34, and Damaes, aainst herein respondent
Sarte and others. nfortunately for petitioner, this was dismissed by the )eional "rial Court of 
6ue7on City %5ranch >$& on the round of litis pendentia. 5e that as it may, the undeniable fact
remains '' respondent is not a party to Civil Case No. 6'4!'!889!, and pararaph 3, or any portion
of the trial courts /udment for that matter, cannot be bindin on him.

<HERE=ORE, the petition for review on certiorari   is DENIED for lac; of merit and the assailed
Decision and )esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA'(.). S* No. +!- are hereby A22I)ED.

Costs aainst petitioner.

SO ORERE.