View full case

SEVERINO A. YU v. DAVID MIRANDA

FACTS:

The petitioners, Severino A. Yu, Ramon A. Yu, and Lorenzo A. Yu, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to challenge the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a case filed by respondent David Miranda against Morning Star Homes Christian Association, Timmy Richard T. Gabriel, and Lilibeth Gabriel. Respondent Miranda alleged in his complaint that Morning Star failed to pay its obligation amounting to P4,100,009.30 and also prayed for the issuance of preliminary attachment over the properties registered under the name of Morning Star. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the prayer for preliminary attachment and issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Subsequently, the petitioners Yu filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, asserting that they are the real owners of the attached properties and that the Deed of Absolute Sale between them and Morning Star is null and void. The RTC denied their motion, prompting the petitioners Yu to seek redress with the CA through a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari. The CA, however, dismissed the petition on the grounds that the RTC's decision had already become final and executory, rendering the issue moot and academic.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners can still be allowed to intervene in Civil Case No. B-8623 despite the fact that the case has already been decided with finality.

  2. Whether the attachment sought to be questioned by the petitioners has legally ceased to exist with the cessation of Civil Case No. B-8623.

  3. Whether there is no other remedy available to the petitioners to protect their interests over the subject properties.

RULING:

  1. The instant appeal is unmeritorious. Intervention cannot be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. The involvement of the petitioners in the case is only incidental and they are not indispensable parties. The non-inclusion of necessary parties does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action and the judgment rendered is without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. Filing a motion for intervention was not absolutely necessary and indispensable because the Rules of Court provide an alternative remedy for a third party claimant of attached property. No affidavit of title or right to possession was filed by the petitioners.

  2. Yes, the attachment sought to be questioned by the petitioners has legally ceased to exist with the cessation of Civil Case No. B-8623. The attachment is only a provisional and ancillary remedy issued in connection with a pending action. Since Civil Case No. B-8623 has been concluded with the finality of the decision, the attachment has ceased to exist.

  3. No, there is another remedy available to the petitioners to protect their interests over the subject properties. The inclusion of necessary parties may have been omitted in the previous case, but the judgment rendered therein is without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. The petitioners can pursue another action to recover the subject properties.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Final and executory judgments are immutable and cannot be modified.

  • Intervention cannot be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment.

  • Necessary parties need not be included in the action, and their non-inclusion does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action. The judgment rendered shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.

  • Filing a motion for intervention is not necessary if there are alternative remedies available for a third-party claimant of attached property.

  • A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy that is ancillary and dependent on the main suit.

  • An attachment or garnishment is generally adjunct to a principal proceeding that aims to determine the justice of a creditor's demand.

  • A judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action.

  • The inclusion of necessary parties may be omitted, but the judgment rendered will be without prejudice to their rights.

  • Another remedy is available if the judgment obligor no longer has any rights over the levied property.