"x x x.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that the Court of Appeals reviewed the same trial court’s decision dated 29 November 1995 in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 declaring: (1) in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 (petition for annulment of paragraph 3 of the judgment filed by respondent, who was not impleaded in the case before the trial court) – that paragraph 3 of the said judgment of the trial court, which nullified any transfer, assignment, sale or mortgage made by Sarte, is not binding nor applicable insofar as respondent’s TCT No. 122944 is concerned; and (2) in CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 (an ordinary appeal filed by Sarte who was the defendant in the case before the court a quo) – that the entire parcel of land belongs to petitioner.
Nonetheless, we see no conflict between the two (2) decisions.
The 11 August 1999 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546, as affirmed by this Court on 16 May 2005 in G.R. No. 140945, set aside paragraph 3 of the assailed decision, which nullified any transfer, assignment, sale or mortgage made by Sarte. Such finding of nullity, however, is confined to the transaction between Sarte and respondent, the portion of the land of which was covered by TCT No. 122944, simply because respondent was not given his day in court in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071. Thus:
A person who was not impleaded in the complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by a proceeding in which he is a stranger.[16]
In fact, the Court, in so affirming the 11 August 1999 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 clarified in its Decision of 16 May 2005 in G.R. No. 140945 that:
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not declaring that respondent is a purchaser of the property in good faith. This is an issue that cannot be dealt with by the Court in this forum, as the only issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in annulling paragraph 3 of the trial court’s decision on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process of law. Whether or not respondent is a purchaser in good faith is an issue which is a different matter altogether that must be threshed out in a full-blown trial for that purpose in an appropriate case and in the proper forum. Also, CA-G.R. CV No. 52466, which is the appeal from the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, is pending before the CA, and it would be premature and unwarranted for the Court to render any resolution that would unnecessarily interfere with the appellate proceedings.[17] (Emphasis supplied)
The case docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 referred to in CA-G.R. SP No. 41546 has now been terminated with the Court of Appeals, in its 21 July 2005 Decision, affirming the trial court’s decision inCivil Case No. Q-91-10071 in its entirety thereby awarding the entire parcel of land in favor of petitioner.
The fact remains, however, that since CA-G.R. CV No. 52466 is a mere appeal from the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, and that respondent had not been impleaded in that case, such ruling is not binding insofar as respondent’s TCT No. 122944 is concerned.
This Court has well-expounded on this matter in G.R. No. 140945, to wit:
Petitioner argues that it should not bear the consequence of the trial court’s denial of its motion to include respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071. True, it was not petitioner’s fault that respondent was not made a party to the case. But likewise, it was not respondent’s fault that he was not given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Whatever prompted the trial court to deny petitioner’s motion to include respondent as defendant is not for the Court to reason why. Petitioner could have brought the trial court’s denial to the CA on certiorari but it did not. Instead, it filed Civil Case No. Q-95-23940 for Annulment of Deed of Assignment, Deed of Absolute Sale, Real Estate Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT Nos. 122944 and 126639, and Damages, against herein respondent Sarte and others. Unfortunately for petitioner, this was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 82) on the ground of litis pendentia. Be that as it may, the undeniable fact remains – respondent is not a party to Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, andparagraph 3, or any portion of the trial courts’ judgment for that matter, cannot be binding on him.[18](Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, referring to the last three lines of the aforequoted paragraph, petitioner’s argument that the fourth and fifth paragraphs[19] of the trial court’s 29 November 1995 decision particularly awarding the entire property in its favor clearly has no leg to stand on. This Court has categorically ruled that any portion of the judgment adverse to the rights of respondent shall not be binding upon him.
Finally, petitioner pointed out that the trial court has already denied respondent’s motion for cancellation of Entry No. 7159/T-No. 122944 annotated at the back of TCT No. 122944. Such contention is likewise without merit.
The Order[20] dated 31 July 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City, indicated the grounds for the denial of the motion, to wit:
1. This court has no jurisdiction to act on said motion considering that the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals of the movant’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment which decision declared null and void the 3rd paragraph of the decision of this court dated November 29, 1995 rests with the Court of Appeals which is the court of origin. Hence, there must be at least an order coming from the Court of Appeals for this court to effect the prayed for cancellation
2. The movant as well as this court were not impleaded as a party in the above-captioned case. In fact, the court is not aware of the alleged decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying the judgment of this court as stated by Mr. Jose Evangelista.
And, it was precisely by virtue of this Order that respondent sought relief from the proper forum.
All considered, we find that the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error when it resolved to: (a) grant respondent’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution of the Decision dated 11 August 1999; and (b) cause the cancellation of Entry No. 7159 annotated on respondent’s TCT No. 122944.
Suffice it to state, by way of reiteration, that this Court is not declaring that respondent has purchased the property in good faith, only that he was not given his day in court to establish his right over the property. The issue of whether or not he was a purchaser in good faith is, therefore, a matter that must be resolved in an appropriate case and in the proper forum.[21]
x x x."
