339 Phil. 361
KAPUNAN, J.:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of complainant and against the respondents:Petitioner failed to file his answer within the reglementary period. He also failed to attend the scheduled hearings despite notification.
1. to order respondents to deliver the titles of the two (2) parcels of land to complainant;
2. to pay to complainant moral damages in the sum of P100,000.00 plus exemplary damages in the amount within the discretion of the Honorable Commission;
3. to pay to complainant attorney’s fees of P25,000.00 and costs.
OTHER AND FURTHER SANCTIONS AND RELIEFS, just and equitable, are herein prayed for.[1]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents Carmel Corporation and Carlos Ysmael, within thirty (30) days from finality of this decision, to deliver to complainant the title of Lots No. 1 and 3, Block No. 1, Carmel Subdivision V-A, Tandang Sora District, Quezon City free from all liens and encumbrances, and to pay complainant the amount of P3,000.00 as administrative fine for violation of Section 25 in relation to Section 38 of P.D. 957.On 12 October 1987, upon motion of private respondent Jamlang and after the aforestated decision became final, the HLURB issued a writ of execution directing petitioner to comply with the following:
Failure to comply with this decision will constrain this Board to forward the records of this case to the Task Force on Subdivision, Department of Justice for the filing of appropriate criminal action, against the responsible officers of respondent corporation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[3]
ELISEO R. JAMLANG,‘“WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED ORDERING RESPONDENTS CARMEL CORPORATION AND CARLOS YSMAEL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM FINALITY OF THIS DECISION TO DELIVER TO COMPLAINANT THE TITLE OF LOTS NO. 1 AND 3, BLOCK NO. 1, CARMEL SUBDIVISION V-A TANDANG SORA DISTRICT, QUEZON CITY FREE FROM ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES, AND TO PAY COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF P3,000.00 BY WAY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND THIS BOARD P3,000.00 AS ADMINISTRATIVE FINE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 25 IN RELATION TO SECTION 38 OF P.D. 957.”’
COMPLAINANT,
-VERSUS- HLRB CASE NO. REM-011387-3068
CARMEL CORPORATION AND
CARLOS YSMAEL,
RESPONDENTS. WRIT OF EXECUTION
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
TO: THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF
(OR ANY OF HIS DEPUTIES)
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, A DECISION WAS RENDERED BY THIS BOARD (FORMERLY HUMAN SETTLEMENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION) DATED 19 AUGUST 1987, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREWITH ATTACHED;
WHEREAS, THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION THEREOF PROVIDES TO WIT:
WHEREAS, THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY;On 31 October 1987, a copy of the writ was served on petitioner by the Sheriff of Quezon City. However, the same was returned unsatisfied due to the foreclosure of the subject lots by the mortgagee banks.
WHEREAS, RESPONDENTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME;
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU PURSUANT TO P.D. NO. 1344 IMPLEMENTING P.D. NO. 957 IN CONNECTION WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 648 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 90 TO EXECUTE SAID JUDGMENT BY CAUSING RESPONDENTS CARMEL CORPORATION AND CARLOS YSMAEL OF 102 4TH STREET, NEW MANILA, QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA TO DELIVER TO COMPLAINANT THE TITLE OF LOTS NO. 1 AND 3, BLOCK NO. 1 CARMEL SUBDIVISION V-A TANDANG SORA DISTRICT, QUEZON CITY FREE FROM ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES, AND TO PAY COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF P3,000.00 BY WAY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND THIS BOARD P3,000.00 AS ADMINISTRATIVE FINE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 25 IN RELATION TO SECTION 38 OF P.D. 957.
WE COMMAND YOU FURTHER THAT, OF THE GOODS AND CHATTELS OF RESPONDENTS CARMEL CORPORATION AND CARLOS YSMAEL AT 102 4TH STREET, NEW MANILA, QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA YOU CAUSE TO BE MADE THE SAID SUMS OF MONEY, TOGETHER WITH YOUR LAWFUL FEES FOR THE SERVICE OF THIS EXECUTION, ALL IN MONEY OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THAT YOU TENDER THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE THIS BOARD, ASIDE FROM YOUR OWN FEES ON THIS EXECUTION AND TO RETURN THIS WRIT TO THIS BOARD WITH YOUR PROCEEDINGS INDORSED THEREON.
BUT IF SUFFICIENT PERSONAL PROPERTIES CANNOT BE FOUND WHEREOF TO SATISFY THIS EXECUTION AND LAWFUL FEES THEREON, THEN YOU ARE COMMANDED THAT OF THE LANDS AND BUILDINGS OF SAID RESPONDENTS, YOU CAUSE TO BE MADE THE SAID SUMS OF MONEY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW AND THE RULES OF COURT MAKE RETURN OF THIS WRIT WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT THEREOF.[4]
xxx.By virtue of the aforecited alias writ of execution, real property owned by petitioner located at 102 4th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 29696 was levied on execution and sold at public auction on 2 June 1989. Jamlang was the highest bidder for P1,590,210.00 which amount corresponded to the current market value of the said property as appraised by a duly licensed appraiser authorized by the HLURB. A certificate of sale was duly issued in favor of Jamlang on the same date.[7]
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU PURSUANT TO P.D. NO. 1344 IMPLEMENTING P.D. 957 IN CONNECTION WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 648 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 90 TO EXECUTE SAID JUDGMENT BY CAUSING RESPONDENTS CARMEL CORPORATION AND CARLOS YSMAEL AT 102 4TH STREET, NEW MANILA, QUEZON CITY TO DELIVER TO COMPLAINANT THE TITLE OF LOTS NO. 1 AND 3, BLOCK NO. 1 CARMEL SUBDIVISION V-A, TANDANG SORA DISTRICT, QUEZON CITY FREE FROM ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PAY COMPLAINANT THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LOTS AND TO PAY COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF P3,000.00 BY WAY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND THIS BOARD P3,000.00 AS ADMINISTRATIVE FINE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 25 IN RELATION TO SECTION 38 OF P. D. 957.
WE COMMAND YOU FURTHER THAT, OF THE GOODS AND CHATTELS OF RESPONDENT CARMEL CORPORATION AND CARLOS YSMAEL, YOU CAUSE TO BE MADE THE SAID SUMS OF MONEY, TOGETHER WITH YOUR LAWFUL FEES FOR THE SERVICE OF THIS EXECUTION, ALL IN THE MONEY OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THAT YOU TENDER THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE TO THIS BOARD ASIDE FROM YOUR OWN FEES ON THIS EXECUTION AND TO RETURN THIS WRIT TO THIS BOARD WITH YOUR PROCEEDINGS INDORSED THEREON.
BUT IF SUFFICIENT PERSONAL PROPERTIES CANNOT BE FOUND WHEREOF TO SATISFY THIS EXECUTION AND LAWFUL FEES THEREON, THEN YOU ARE COMMANDED THAT OF THE LANDS AND BUILDINGS OF SAID RESPONDENTS, YOU CAUSE TO BE MADE THE SAID SUMS OF MONEY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW AND THE RULES OF COURT AND TO MAKE RETURN OF THIS WRIT WITHIN (60) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT THEREOF.[6] (Underscoring ours.)
Finding complainant’s Motion, dated 25 June 1990, to be well taken, the same is hereby GRANTED.Pursuant to the abovequoted order, on 28 June 1990 a Notice to Vacate was issued by Sheriff Eliseo Eje which reads:
Accordingly, the Ex-Officio Sheriff or any of his Deputies, Quezon City, is hereby ordered to place the complainant herein, Eliseo R. Jamlang in actual possession of a parcel of land, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29696 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, including all improvements found therein and at the same time evict all tenants and adverse occupants deriving possession and rights from respondents Carlos Ysmael and Carmel Corporation perpetually thereafter and to likewise submit a report within fifteen (15) days from service hereof.
Should you not be allowed to enter the premises, then you are commanded to use reasonable force or destroy the means of entry, if warranted.
It is understood that legal expenses for the execution of this Order shall be for the account of complainant without prejudice to his rights of reimbursement from the respondents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[9]
You are hereby notified that pursuant to the ORDER issued by the Housing and Land Use Arbiter, Atty. ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, Makati, Metro Manila, in the above-entitled case, copy which is hereto attached and SERVED UPON YOU, the Ex-Officio Sheriff thru the UNDERSIGNED is GIVING YOU THREE (3) DAYS from receipt of this Notice to Vacate and LEAVE VOLUNTARILY the premises more particularly located at No. (102) 4th Street, New Manila, Quezon City.This notice was posted on the perimeter fence of the abovementioned property when the occupants thereof refused to receive the same.
FAILURE ON YOUR PART to COMPLY with this ‘NOTICE TO VACATE’ within the prescriptive period of ‘THREE (3) DAYS, WE SHALL BE CONSTRAINED, MUCH TO OUR REGRET, TO IMPLEMENT AND/OR ENFORCE THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONORABLE BOARD.’
Please be guided accordingly.[10]
The circumstances surrounding this litigation definitely prove that the petition is patently frivolous and dilatory. It reveals a plan to delay and prolong litigation unnecessarily, wasting as it does the time that courts could well devote to meritorious cases. Such attitude deserves severe condemnation.Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 14 September 1990 and on 8 January 1991, the Court of Appeals denied the same for lack of merit.[12]
Premises considered, We find that both public respondents did not act without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the questioned order and notice to vacate.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED with treble costs against petitioner.
The temporary restraining order earlier issued by this Court is hereby lifted and set aside.
SO ORDERED.[11]
I. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HLURB DECISION DATED 19 AUGUST 1987.
II. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE 12 APRIL 1989 ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT HLURB, TOGETHER WITH ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT THERETO, WAS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING AN ORDER OF EXECUTION BEYOND THE TERMS OF THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN HLURB CASE NO. REM-011387-3068.
III. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HLURB AND SHERIFF ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND/OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE 27 JUNE 1990 ORDER AND THE 28 JUNE 1990 NOTICE TO VACATE, PROCEEDING AS THEY DID FROM THE FATALLY DEFECTIVE 12 APRIL 1989 ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION.
IV. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IGNORING PETITIONER’S MANIFESTATION OFFERING TO SATISFY SUBSTANTIALLY THE PRAYER IN PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S COMPLAINT.[13]
This improper and unjust amendment of the terms of the judgment has resulted in the wrongful levy on execution on, and subsequent sale at public auction of, the subject property covered by TCT No. 29696 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City located at No. 102 4th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which was not at all involved in the said HLURB case.[16]Despite his passionate arguments, we are constrained to rule against petitioner on grounds of fairness and equity particularly on the principle of estoppel. In PNB v. CA,[17] we held:
... The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by this Court wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demand. (Underscoring ours.)In the case at bar, it is quite telling that petitioner failed to take any kind of action to manifest his protest against the alias writ of execution. His indifference to the whole proceedings was quite evident as it was only after the final deed of sale was executed and a notice to vacate was issued to him that he filed a special civil action of certiorari impugning the aforestated orders and the execution proceedings, specifically the alias writ of execution. It would seem then that petitioner only complained because, and after, the sheriff was finally ordered to evict him from the premises.
... At the time private respondent Jamlang had fully paid the purchase price of the two lots on February 25, 1974, petitioner had in his possession the title to one of the two lots but instead of delivering the same to private respondent Jamlang opted to mortgage said lot to Equitable Banking Corporation on September 17, 1974, and allowed said bank to foreclose the mortgage. These circumstances give rise to the conclusion that petitioner indeed had no intention to comply with his legal and contractual obligations and intended to use due process merely as a shield to escape liability.[20]Petitioner repeatedly stressed that he is not questioning the default judgment itself, and certainly he would not, since it cannot be enforced against him anyway. Said judgment is not worth the paper it is written on and petitioner was aware of it. He deliberately defaulted in the proceedings before the HLURB because he knew that the land titles could no longer be delivered to private respondent Jamlang. Unfortunately for petitioner, we see through his underhanded scheme. His insidious and deplorable tactics to defeat the ends of justice will not be countenanced. He who comes to court for relief must come with clean hands.
Sec. 5. Extent of relief to be awarded.--A judgment entered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for.We are not unaware of the philosophy underlying the aforequoted rule as aptly elucidated in Lim Toco v. Go Fay,[22] thus:
....[T]he reason underlying this provision is that it may be presumed that where the relief demanded by plaintiff greater or different in kind from that claimed in the complaint, defendant would not have let himself declared in default and should have filed his answer on time opposing the plaintiff’s demand.But as we have extensively discussed earlier, petitioner did not challenge the default order because he admits Jamlang’s cause of action against him and was willing to abide by the HLURB’s verdict to return the land titles but because he was well aware that the prayer in the original complaint could no longer be enforced. Jamlang would end up with an empty victory. Such deceitful act must not go unpunished. Technicalities should not be used to stay the hand of justice.