100%(1)100% au considerat acest document util (1 vot)
407 vizualizări11 pagini
The document discusses a writ of possession, which is an order commanding a sheriff to place a person in possession of real or personal property. It can be issued in land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosures where the debtor possesses the mortgaged property, or in extrajudicial foreclosures. It also discusses that money judgments are only enforceable against the judgment debtor's property, and a third party can challenge a levy on their property. The filing of a lis pendens keeps the subject property within the court's power until final judgment to prevent successive alienations, and binds purchasers to the court's judgment. However, lis pendens does not apply to proceedings solely seeking money judgments. A judgment can only be enforced
The document discusses a writ of possession, which is an order commanding a sheriff to place a person in possession of real or personal property. It can be issued in land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosures where the debtor possesses the mortgaged property, or in extrajudicial foreclosures. It also discusses that money judgments are only enforceable against the judgment debtor's property, and a third party can challenge a levy on their property. The filing of a lis pendens keeps the subject property within the court's power until final judgment to prevent successive alienations, and binds purchasers to the court's judgment. However, lis pendens does not apply to proceedings solely seeking money judgments. A judgment can only be enforced
The document discusses a writ of possession, which is an order commanding a sheriff to place a person in possession of real or personal property. It can be issued in land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosures where the debtor possesses the mortgaged property, or in extrajudicial foreclosures. It also discusses that money judgments are only enforceable against the judgment debtor's property, and a third party can challenge a levy on their property. The filing of a lis pendens keeps the subject property within the court's power until final judgment to prevent successive alienations, and binds purchasers to the court's judgment. However, lis pendens does not apply to proceedings solely seeking money judgments. A judgment can only be enforced
RAMON AND NATIVIDAD VILLACORTA, Gagoomal vs. Villacorta respondents. other mans indebtedness, such person has all the right to challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided Remedial Law; Judgments; Levy; Writs of Possession; A for under the Rules of Court. Section 16, Rule 39 thereof writ of possession is an order by which the sheriff is specifically provides that a third person may avail himself commanded to place a person in possession of a real or of the remedies of either terceria, to determine whether the personal property.A writ of possession is an order by sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not which the sheriff is commanded to place a person in belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an possession of a real or personal property. We clarified in the independent separate action to vindicate their claim of case of Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc., 593 SCRA ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. 216 92009), that a writ of possession may be issued under However, a person other than the judgment debtor who any of the following instances: (a) land registration claims ownership or right over the levied properties is not proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (b) judicial precluded from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the claim mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the Same; Civil Procedure; Lis Pendens; Legal Effects of foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (c) extrajudicial Filing a Notice of Lis Pendens.The filing of a notice of lis foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act pendenshas a dual effect: (1) to keep the property subject No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118. matter of the litigation within the power of the court until Same; Same; Same; Same; Money judgments are the entry of the final judgment in order to prevent the enforceable only against property incontrovertibly belonging defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and to the judgment debtor, and if property belonging to any (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or otherwise, of the third person is mistakenly levied upon to answer for another property subject of the litigation to the judgment that the mans indebtedness, such person has all the right to court will subsequently promulgate. Relative thereto, a challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided for notice of lis pendens is proper in the following actions and under the Rules of Court.It is a basic principle of law that their concomitant proceedings: (a) an action to recover money judgments are enforceable only against property possession of real estate; (b) an action to quiet title thereto; incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor, and if (c) an action to remove clouds thereon; (d) an action for property belonging to any third person is mistakenly levied partition; and (e) any other proceedings of any kind in upon to answer for an- _______________ Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or * THIRD DIVISION. occupation thereof or the buildings thereon. Same; Same; Same; The doctrine of lis pendens has no 445 application to a proceeding in which the only object sought VOL. 663, 4 is the recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right of possession to property be incidentally affected.To be sure, in Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Herbal Cove Realty executed or issued against a party to the action, not against Corporation, 399 SCRA 409 (2003), We have previously one who has not yet had his day in court. explained that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application Same; Same; Judgments; A judgment which has to a proceeding in which the only object sought is the acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right of hence may no longer be modified in any respect except only possession to property be incidentally affected. It is to correct clerical errors or mistakes.As correctly observed essential that the property be directly affected such as by the CA, the quashal of a writ of possession does not have when the relief sought in the action or suit includes the the effect of modifying or abrogating the judgment of the recovery of possession, or the enforcement of a lien, or an RTC. The settled rule is that a judgment which has adjudication between conflicting claims of title, possession, acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and or the right of possession to specific property, or requiring hence may no longer be modified in any respect except only its transfer or sale. Even if a party initially avails of a to correct clerical errors or mistakesall the issues notice of lis pendens upon the filing of a between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest. 446 To reiterate, however, the courts power with regard to execution of judgments extends only to properties 4 SUPREME irrefutably belonging to the judgment debtor, which does 46 COURT REPORTS not obtain in this case. ANNOTATED Gagoomal vs. Villacorta PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and case in court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the resolution of the Court of Appeals. case turns out to be a purely personal action. In such event, The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. the notice of lis pendensbecomes functus officio. Paul Abbot P. Enriquez for petitioner. Same; Same; Writs of Execution; Sheriffs; Should the Zamora, Poblador, Vasquez & Bretaa for sheriff levy upon the assets of a third person in which the respondents. judgment debtor has not even the remotest interest, then he 447 is acting beyond the limits of his authority. A judgment can only be executed or issued against a party to the action.It VOL. 663, JANUARY 447 bears to stress that the court issuing the writ of execution 18, 2012 may enforce its authority only over properties or rights of Gagoomal vs. Villacorta the judgment debtor, and the sheriff acts properly only PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: when he subjects to execution property undeniably Assailed in this Petition for Review belonging to the judgment debtor. Should the sheriff levy on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the upon the assets of a third person in which the judgment Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 8, debtor has not even the remotest interest, then he is acting 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 109004, as well as the beyond the limits of his authority. A judgment can only be Resolution2 dated July 7, 2010 denying the motion for 448 reconsideration thereof. The dispositive portion of the 448 SUPREME COURT assailed Decision reads: REPORTS WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition ANNOTATED is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated August 5, 2008 Gagoomal vs. Villacorta and March 20, 2009 issued by Hon. Danilo S. Cruz of the Agreement5 (MOA) dated March 2, 1995 whereby Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig City are Zearosa, through an Irrevocable Special Power of hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDEand another one Attorney, authorized RAM, among others, to sell the entered, the Motion to Quash Writ of Possession filed by spouses Ramon and Natividad Villacorta in Civil Case No. subject property in case of his failure to pay. 67381 is GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, the Writ of Zearosa failed to settle his obligations prompting Possession issued in Civil Case No. 67381 is RAM to file a Complaint6 for collection of sum of money ordered QUASHED. with damages against him and BPI before the RTC of SO ORDERED. Pasig City, Branch 152, docketed as Civil Case No. 67381. RAM also caused the annotation of a notice The Facts of lis pendens on TCT No. 170213 on June 11, 1999. Albert Zearosa (Zearosa) was the registered Pending Civil Case No. 67381, Zearosa failed to owner of a parcel of land located in Ayala Alabang pay his obligation to BPI resulting in the foreclosure of Village, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, covered by the subject property. The certificate of sale was Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 170213. He annotated on TCT No. 170213 on March 24, 2000. mortgaged the same in favor of BPI Family Savings Meanwhile, RAM sold its rights and interests over Bank (BPI) which was duly annotated on the title on the subject property to New Summit International, June 7, 1990. Inc., represented by its President, Vashdeo Gagoomal, Subsequently, Zearosa obtained a loan in the herein petitioner. The assignment was annotated on amount of $300,000.00 from RAM Holdings TCT No. 170213 on October 16, 2000. Corporation (RAM), secured by a second On August 29, 2002, one Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr. mortgage3 over the property and a Promissory (Lorenzo) filed a complaint for recovery of sum of Note.4 The parties likewise executed a Memorandum of money with application for a writ of preliminary _______________ 1 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with attachment against Zearosa before the RTC of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Elihu A. Ybaez, Makati City, Branch 64, docketed as Civil Case No. 02- concurring; Rollo, pp. 50-63. 1038. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on 2 Id., at pp. 66-67. 3 Id., Annex C, pp. 69-75. September 20, 2002, pursuant to which the Branch 4 Id., Annex D, pp. 77-78. Sheriff of Makati City attached the subject property. The lien was annotated on TCT No. 170213 on a motion for execution pending appeal, which was September 30, 2002. granted.9On December 14, 2004, the property subject On the other hand, Zearosa redeemed the of notice of lis pendens was sold at public auction to foreclosed property from BPI on March 23, 2003. petitioner, the successor-in-interest of RAM, for Thereafter, he sold the property to a certain Patricia A. P19,793,500.00.10 The certificate of sale was annotated Tan (Tan) in whose favor TCT No. 102067 was issued on Tans TCT No. 10206 on December 17, 2004. on April 4, 2003. The annotations On January 29, 2005, in view of Zearosas failure _______________ to redeem the property from Lorenzo, the title over the 5 Id., Annex E, pp. 80-83. subject property was consolidated in the latters name. 6 Id., Annex F, pp. 85-94. 7 Id., Annex G, pp. 127-131. A writ of possession was issued in favor of Lorenzo, who subsequently sold the property to Natividad 449 Villacorta, one of the respondents herein, for VOL. 663, JANUARY 449 P6,000,000.00. Immediately after purchasing the 18, 2012 property, respondents took possession thereof. Gagoomal vs. Villacorta Meanwhile, Zearosas appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. of the notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 67381, as 84523 was dismissed, and the decision in favor of RAM well as the notice of levy on attachment in Civil Case became final and executory on October 7, 2005. With a No. 02-1038, were carried over to her title. sale annotated in its favor, and without Zearosa In the meantime, in Civil Case No. 02-1038, exercising his right of redemption, a final Deed of Sale Lorenzo obtained a favorable decision which had was issued in favor of petitioner, the become final and executory. A notice of levy and _______________ execution on the subject attached property was issued 8 Id., Annex H, Decision dated April 30, 2004, pp. 133-138. and annotated on the title. On January 15, 2004, the 9 Id., Annex I, pp. 140-141. 10 Id., Annex J, pp. 143-144. property was sold at public auction to Lorenzo for P9,034,166.00 and the Certificate of Sale was 450 annotated on TCT No. 10206 on January 30, 2004, 450 SUPREME COURT giving Zearosa until January 29, 2005 within which REPORTS to redeem the property. ANNOTATED Subsequently, or on April 30, 2004, the RTC Gagoomal vs. Villacorta rendered judgment in favor of RAM in Civil Case No. successor-in-interest of RAM, on December 14, 2005. 67381 for sum of money.8 Pending Zearosas appeal to By virtue of a writ of possession11 issued by the RTC the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 84523, RAM filed on February 1, 2007 in Civil Case No. 67381, petitioner divested the respondents of possession of the 14 Id., Annex Q, pp. 193-201. 15 Id., Annex R, p. 205. disputed property. 16 Id., Annex S, pp. 207-238. The foregoing developments prompted the 451 respondents to file a Motion to Quash Writ of Possession12 in Civil Case No. 67381 before the RTC of VOL. 663, JANUARY 451 Pasig City, Branch 152, on March 20, 2007. They also 18, 2012 filed a case for quieting of title and recovery of Gagoomal vs. Villacorta possession before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch purchased the same in a sale on execution on January 15, 276, docketed as Civil Case No. 08-011. 2004. The title to the subject property was consolidated in On August 5, 2008, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch favor of Lorenzo on January 29, 2005 and said annotation 152, issued an Order13 in Civil Case No. 67381 was reflected on the certificate of title. Gagoomal, on his denying respondents Motion to Quash Writ of part, maintains that he has a superior right over Lorenzo Possession. It also directed the Registry of Deeds of because his predecessor-in-interest, Ram, was able to cause Muntinlupa City to issue a new transfer certificate of the annotation of lis pendensahead of Lorenzos writ of title in the name of petitioner Vashdeo Gagoomal. The attachment. The fact that the notice of lis pendens regarding to [sic] motion for reconsideration14 thereof was similarly Civil Case No. 67381 was annotated ahead of the denied.15 attachment of the subject property in Civil Case No. 02- Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition 1038 is of no moment. Hence, We agree with spouses for certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief16 before Villacorta that Gagoomal did not acquire any title to the the CA, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part property since what he purchased during the public auction of the RTC in directing the transfer of title over the on October 14, 2004 was only the remaining right of subject property to petitioner; in denying their motion redemption of Zearosa. to quash the writ of possession; and in refusing to xxx xxx xxx restore to them the possession of the subject property. In the present case, the annotation of Ram of the lis In its assailed Decision, the CA granted pendens was improper because the case filed by Ram respondents petition, ratiocinating as follows: against Zearosa was purely a personal action. Civil Case Records show that spouses Villacorta derived their No. 67381, entitled Ram Holdings Corporation vs. Albert rights in the subject property from their predecessor-in- Zearosa, et al., is for Collection of Sum of Money with interest, Lorenzo, who Damages. It has been held that the doctrine of lis _______________ pendens has no application to a proceeding in which the 11 Id., Annex N, pp. 159-160. only object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, 12 Id., Annex O, pp. 162-172. though the title or right of possession to property may be 13 Id., Annex P, pp. 178-191. affected. It is essential that the property be directly affected, as where the relief sought in the action or suit includes the The Issues recovery of possession, or the enforcement of a lien, or an Hence, this petition advancing the following issues adjudication between conflicting claims of title, possession, for Our resolution, to wit: or right of possession to specific property, or requiring its transfer or sale [citation omitted]17 I. Essentially, the CA concluded that the RTC RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHTFUL CLAIM committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered TO THE PROPERTY. II. the Register of Deeds to transfer to petitioner the title RESPONDENTS HAD NO BASIS TO ASK FOR THE and possession of the subject property notwithstanding QUASHAL OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION. unrebutted evidence that Zearosa, the judgment III. debtor in Civil Case No. 67381, was no longer its THE PASIG REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CAN RULE ON owner and had only the remaining right of re- TRANSFER OF TITLE. _______________ IV. 17 Supra note 1, at p. 57, paragraphs 1-4. PETITIONERS RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF 452 RESPONDENTS. 452 SUPREME COURT V. REPORTS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION OVERSTEPPED ISSUES.18 ANNOTATED Gagoomal vs. Villacorta _______________ 18 Rollo, Petition, pp. 20-21. demption at the time the property was sold at public auction to petitioner on December 14, 2004. 453 Corollary thereto, the CA held that the power of the VOL. 663, JANUARY 453 RTC to execute its judgment extends only to property 18, 2012 belonging to the judgment debtor in Civil Case No. Gagoomal vs. Villacorta 67381, Zearosa in this case, and did not include the The Ruling of the Court respondents. The CA likewise refused to give merit to The petition is bereft of merit. petitioners contentions that the respondents can no A writ of possession is an order by which the sheriff longer ask for the modification or abrogation of the is commanded to place a person in possession of a real decision of the RTC which had already attained or personal property. We clarified in the case of Motos finality, and that since the writ of possession had v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc.19 that a writ of already been implemented, then it can no longer be possession may be issued under any of the following quashed. instances: (a) land registration proceedings under 454 SUPREME COURT Section 17 of Act No. 496;20 (b) judicial foreclosure, REPORTS provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged ANNOTATED realty and no third person, not a party to the Gagoomal vs. Villacorta foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (c) extrajudicial title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118.21 property shall be given to the purchaser or last Corollary thereto, Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is of Court provides: actually holding the property adversely to the judgment SEC. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration obligor. of redemption period; by whom executed or given.If no In this case, the writ of possession was issued and redemption be made within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is executed in favor of petitioner under the foregoing entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, provision. However, a punctilious review of the records if so redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and will show that its grant and enforcement against the no other redemption has been made, and notice thereof subject property, over which the respondentsthird given, and the time for redemption has expired, the last parties to Civil Case No. 6738claim an adverse redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance and possession; interest, are devoid of legal basis. but in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire It is a basic principle of law that money judgments period of one (1) year from the date of the registration of the are enforceable only against property incontrovertibly sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by belonging to the judgment debtor, and if property the officer making the sale or by his successor in office, and belonging to any third person is mistakenly levied in the latter case shall have the same validity as though the upon to answer for another mans indebtedness, such officer making the sale had continued in office and executed it. person has all the right to challenge the levy through Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and Court. Section 16,22 Rule 39 thereof specifically acquire all the rights, provides _______________ _______________ 19 G.R. No. 171386, July 17, 2009, 593 SCRA 216, 224. 22 Sec. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third 20 The Land Registration Act, approved on November 6, 1902. person. 21 Fernandez v. Espinoza, G.R. No. 156421, April 14, 2008, 551 If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the SCRA 136, 144-145. judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the 454 grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the and execution, finally acquiring the property in a officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court public auction sale on January 30, 2004. Similarly, to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the respondents have instituted a separate civil action for value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such quieting of title and recovery of property before the value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, docketed as execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor Civil Case No. 08-011. is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the Petitioners argument that he acquired a superior filing of the bond. right over the subject property by virtue of the earlier The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or annotation of keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is _______________ filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a 455 separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party VOL. 663, JANUARY 455 claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim. 18, 2012 When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of Gagoomal vs. Villacorta the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is that a third person may avail himself of the remedies sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by of either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose. 23 Gomez v. Sta. Ines, G.R. No. 132537, October 14, 2005, 473 independent separate action to vindicate their claim SCRA 25, 38. of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed 24 Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. property.23However, a person other than the judgment 126322, January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 451, 459. debtor who claims ownership or right over the levied 456 properties is not precluded from taking other legal 456 SUPREME COURT remedies to prosecute his claim.24 REPORTS In the present case, respondents filed a motion to ANNOTATED quash the writ of possession substantiating their Gagoomal vs. Villacorta preferential rights over the subject property which a notice of lis pendens on June 11, 1999 by his they had purchased from Lorenzo. As earlier stated, predecessor-in-interest RAM on the same title cannot Lorenzo, in Civil Case No. 02-1038, caused the be given credence. annotation of a writ of preliminary attachment on Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides: September 30, 2002 and thereafter, a notice of levy Sec. 14. Notice of lis pendens.In an action _______________ affecting the title or the right of possession of real 25 Spouses Conrado and Ma. Corona Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 483, 493. property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of 457 the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is VOL. 663, JANUARY 457 situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice 18, 2012 shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the Gagoomal vs. Villacorta action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing such (d) an action for partition; and notice for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the (e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive directly affecting the title to the land or the use or notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.26 pendency against the parties designated by their real Thus, a notice of lis pendens is only valid and names. effective when it affects title over or right of possession The notice of lis pendenshereinabove mentioned may be of a real property. cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper showing In this case, it cannot be denied that Civil Case No. that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse 67381, which RAM, predecessor-in-interest of party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the petitioner, instituted against Zearosa was for party who caused it to be recorded. [emphasis ours] collection of sum of money with damagesa purely The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a dual effect: personal action. Hence, the notice of lis pendens in (1) to keep the property subject matter of the litigation favor of RAM annotated on the cancelled TCT No. within the power of the court until the entry of the 170213 and carried over to Tans TCT No. 10206 final judgment in order to prevent the defeat of the conferred upon it no rights over the subject property final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to and, as a necessary consequence, upon petitioner, its bind a purchaser, bona fide or otherwise, of the successor-in-interest. property subject of the litigation to the judgment that To be sure, in Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Herbal Cove the court will subsequently promulgate.25 Realty Corporation,27 We have previously explained Relative thereto, a notice of lis pendens is proper in that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a the following actions and their concomitant proceeding in which the only object sought is the proceedings: recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right (a) an action to recover possession of real estate; of possession to property be incidentally affected. It is (b) an action to quiet title thereto; essential that the property be directly affected such as (c) an action to remove clouds thereon; when the relief sought in the action or suit includes the recovery of possession, or the enforcement of a lien, redemption having been made. Consequently, the writ or an adjudication between conflicting claims of title, of possession issued as a result of a wrongful execution possession, or the right of possession to specific was not proper and cannot be enforced against the property, or requiring its transfer or sale. Even if a respondents who are third parties in possession of and party initially avails of a notice of lis pendens upon the claiming an adverse interest on the property in filing of a case in court, such notice is rendered controversy. nugatory if the case turns out to be a purely personal It bears to stress that the court issuing the writ of action. In such event, the notice of lis execution may enforce its authority only over pendens becomes functus officio. properties or rights of the judgment debtor, and the _______________ sheriff acts properly only when he subjects to 26 Id., citing Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court execution property undeniably belonging to the of Appeals, G.R. No. 60323, April 17, 1990, 184 SCRA 325, 330. 27 G.R. No. 148568, March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA 409, 419-420. judgment debtor. Should the sheriff levy upon the assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor 458 has not even the remotest interest, then he is acting 458 SUPREME COURT beyond the limits of his authority. A judgment can REPORTS only be executed or issued against a party to the action, ANNOTATED not against one who has not yet had his day in court.28 Gagoomal vs. Villacorta Neither can We affirm petitioners contention that Accordingly, petitioner has not created a superior in seeking the quashal of the writ of possession, the right over the subject property as against respondents respondents were, in effect, asking the RTC to by reason of the prior annotation in 1999 of the notice abrogate its decision, which had already attained of lis pendens by his predecessor RAM. Hence, the finality. As correctly observed29 by the CA, the quashal subsequent levy on execution on October 14, 2004 of a writ of possession does not have the arising from the final money judgment in favor of _______________ petitioner cannot prevail over the earlier annotated 28 Naguit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137675, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 60, 67. attachment made by Lorenzo on September 30, 2002 29 Supra note 1, at p. 60, paragraph 3. and its subsequent notice of levy on execution and sale of the property to respondents on January 30, 2004, 459 who then took possession. On October 14, 2004, what VOL. 663, JANUARY 459 petitioner merely levied upon on execution was the 18, 2012 remaining redemption rights of Zearosa until Gagoomal vs. Villacorta January 29, 2005 which period expired without any effect of modifying or abrogating the judgment of the the writ of possession issued relative thereto was RTC. The settled rule is that a judgment which has likewise improper and must necessarily be quashed, as acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, correctly ruled by the CA. Accordingly, since the and hence may no longer be modified in any respect _______________ 30 Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. except only to correct clerical errors or mistakesall 102692, September 23, 1996, 262 SCRA 298, 309. the issues between the parties being deemed resolved 31 Kukan International Corporation v. Hon. Amor Reyes, G.R. No. and laid to rest.30 To reiterate, however, the courts 182729, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 596, 608, citing Carpio v. power with regard to execution of judgments extends Doroja, G.R. No. 84516, December 5, 1989, 180 SCRA 1, 7. only to properties irrefutably belonging to the 460 judgment debtor, which does not obtain in this case. 460 SUPREME COURT Therefore, petitioners contention that the writ of REPORTS possession had already been enforced and can no ANNOTATED longer be quashed deserves scant consideration. Gagoomal vs. Villacorta Unquestionably, the RTC has a general supervisory respondents were unduly deprived of possession of the control over the entire execution process, and such subject property, they must be immediately restored authority carries with it the right to determine every into its possession, without prejudice to the result of question which may be invariably involved in the Civil Case No. 08-011. execution.31 Respondents invoked this supervisory WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. power when they sought the quashal of the writ of The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of possession. Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Finally, considering the circumstances of this case, SO ORDERED. We cannot uphold the RTCs directive to transfer the title over the subject property from respondents to petitioner, for utter lack of legal basis. To emphasize, apart from the motion to quash the writ of possession, respondents have instituted a case for quieting of title and recovery of possession before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, docketed as Civil Case No. 08-011. In sum, We find that the RTC erred in implementing the writ of execution against the subject property which does not irrefutably belong to Zearosa, the judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 67381. Hence,