Wednesday, April 8, 2009
PANOTES V. CITY TOWNHOUSE (REMEDIAL)
An action for REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of 5 years without being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to reopen any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor's case nor the propriety or correctness of the first judgment.
The original judgment or the NHA Resolution sought to be revived was between Panotes and PROSECOR, nt between petitioner Bumatay and CTDC. In maintaining that CTDC is bound by the NHA Resolution, petitioner claims that CTDC is the successor-in-interest of PROSECOR.
The contract does notr include the transfer of rights of PROSECOR as owner-developer of the said subdivision. Clearly, there is no basis to conclude the CTDC is the successor-in-interest of PROSECOR.
It bears stressing that when CTDC nought Block 40, there was no annotation on PROSECOR's title showing that the property is encumbered. CTDC is thus a buyer in good faith and for value and as such, may not be deprived of the ownership of Block 40. Verily, the NHA Resolution may not be enforced against CTDC.
Clearly, providing an open space within the subdivision remains to be the obligation of PROSECOR, the owner-developer and the real party-in-interest in the case for revival of judgment.
Further, strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by the judgment rendered by a court. It will not divest the rights of a party who has not and never been a party to a litigation. EXECUTION of a judgment can be issued only against a party to the action and not against one who did not have his day in court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment