G.R. No. 123698 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPS. LILIA SEVILLA AND JOSE SEELIN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Declaring the defendant's Certificate of Title No. 205942 null and void. Dismissing counterclaim of defendant without pronouncement as to costs." The aforesaid decision was affirmed [3] by respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 25989 on June 25, 1991 and eventually upheld by this Court in G.R. No. L-101819 on November 25, 1991. Said dismissal became final on March 5, 1992. [4] The RTC decision, having become final and executory, private respondents moved for execution which was granted by the lower court. Accordingly, a writ of execution of the decision was issued. Subsequently, private respondents filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession/Break Open Order. The motion was opposed by herein petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation contending that it is not submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial court; that it is completely unaware of the suit between private respondents and Central Dyeing; that it is the true and registered owner of the lot having bought the same from Central Dyeing; and that it was a buyer in good faith. On July 1, 1992, the trial court granted private respondents motion. Another Order was issued on August 18, 1992 by the trial court holding that the judgment was binding on petitioner, being the successor-in-interest of defendant Central Dyeing pursuant to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari. On September 30, 1992 the Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the petition, excerpts of which read: "We reviewed carefully the assailed orders and find no compelling reason to disturb the same. Indeed, since petitioner admits that it bought the property from Central Dyeing and Finishing Corporation, defendant in Civil Case No. C-9297, petitioner is bound by the decision rendered therein by respondent Judge. Under Section 20, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court, a transferee pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee" [5] The motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of Appeals on February 18, 1993. [6] On further appeal to this Court, petitioners petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G. R. No. 109076, was denied in a resolution dated August 2, 1993. [7] Upon finality of said resolution, this Court issued Entry of Judgment dated October 21, 1993. [8] Thereafter, private respondents filed another motion for the issuance of a second writ of execution before the trial court which was granted in the Order of July 20, 1994. Not willing to give up, petitioner sought a reconsideration. Petitioners motion was initially granted [9] on August 29, 1994 by the trial court thru Judge Arturo Romero. However, upon motion of private respondents, the said o