G.R. No. 150722 - SPOUSES EUGENIO & VICENTA REYES, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. OSCAR P. BARRIENTOS, AS JUDGE, RTC, MALOLOS, BULACAN, BR. 82, AND RAMIL, JESUS, MELCHOR, JOSEPH AND ERWIN, ALL SURNAMED VOLUNTAD.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Order of the trial court which denied Petitioners' Motion for a Second Alias Writ of Execution against Respondent Spouses Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for the immediate issuance of a Second Alias Writ of Execution against Respondents Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes for the enforcement of the final judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, in Civil Case 142-M-93, allowing petitioners, Delfin Voluntad and the heirs of Luz Voluntad to exercise their Right of Repurchase the property covered by TCT No. T-178105 presently registered in the name of Respondent- Spouses Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes. xxx. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied in its Resolution dated 5 April 2000, received by petitioners on 30 May 2000. Contending that they were not given their day in court as they were never impleaded as party-defendants in the herein Civil Case No. 142-M-93, and that their inability to intervene in the proceedings therein was due to excusable negligence, petitioner Reyes filed the subject Petition for Relief from Judgment on 21 June 2000. On 9 August 2000, public respondent [Judge Barrientos] issued the assailed Order denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment on the following grounds: The Petition for Relief from Judgment was filed out of time; and Petitioners have no legal personality to file the Petition for Relief from Judgment. On 22 August 2000, public respondent issued a Second Alias Writ of Execution against petitioners. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the first assailed Order dated 9 August 2000 was denied in the other questioned Order. ( Bracketed words supplied .) From the adverse actions of the respondent judge, herein petitioners went to the CA on a petition for certiorari, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62100, arguing that the respondent judge's orders dated 9 August 2000 and 25 October 2000, which respectively dismissed their petition for relief from judgment in Civil Case No. 142-M-93 and denied their motion for reconsideration, were issued in grave abuse of discretion. In the herein assailed Decision dated 31 July 2001, the appellate court dismissed the petition and affirmed the challenged orders of the respondent judge, thus: WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Orders are AFFIRMED . With costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.