FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 213054. June 15, 2016.]

TERESITA TAN , petitioner, vs. JOVENCIO F. CINCO, SIMON LORI

HOLDINGS, INC., PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION,
FORTUNATO G. PE, RAYMUNDO G. PE, JOSE REVILLA REYES, JR.,
AND DEPUTY SHERIFF ROMMEL IGNACIO , respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated January
22, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated June 11, 2014 rendered by the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 122492, which reversed and set aside the Orders dated August
5, 2011 4 and October 17, 2011 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch
257 (Parañaque RTC) and directed the allowance and approval of respondents' Notice
of Appeal 6 filed on June 17, 2011.
The Facts
In 2001, respondents Simon Lori Holdings, Inc. (SLHI), Fortunato G. Pe,
Raymundo G. Pe, Jovencio F. Cinco, and Jose Revilla Reyes, Jr. (individual lenders)
extended a loan to one Dante Tan (Dante) in the amount of P50,000,000.00. The loan
was facilitated by PentaCapital Investment Corporation (PentaCapital) and was
secured by Dante's shares in Best World Resources Corporation (BWRC). 7 When Dante
failed to pay the loan upon maturity and despite demands, he proposed to settle the
same by selling his shares in BWRC and assigning the proceeds to SLHI, the individual
lenders, and PentaCapital (respondents). 8
However, when he was due to execute the corresponding deeds of assignment,
Dante disappeared, leaving his obligations unpaid. 9 Hence, respondents led an action
for sum of money against him before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch
146 (Makati RFC), docketed as Civil Case No. 01-357 (collection case). 10 After due
proceedings, the Makati RTC rendered judgment 11 on May 21, 2002 ordering Dante to
pay respondents the sum of P100,100,000.00 with legal interest from June 26, 2000
until the principal amount is fully paid, plus attorney's fees and costs. Dante's attempts
to reverse the decision on appeal proved futile, thus, a Writ of Execution 12 (writ) was
issued on February 16, 2005.
In order to enforce the writ, Deputy Sheriff Rommel Ignacio (Sheriff Ignacio)
levied on a property covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. 126981 13
registered in Dante's name (subject property). An auction sale was then conducted on
March 29, 2005. 14 Consequently, Dante sought the quashal of the writ by presenting an
af davit executed by his wife, herein petitioner Teresita Tan (Teresita) attesting to the
conjugal nature of the subject property. Meanwhile, the period to redeem the subject
property lapsed without redemption having been made; hence, a Sheriff's Final Deed of
Sale 15 was issued in favor of respondents. 16
Undeterred, Dante led an Omnibus Motion 17 alleging that the subject property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 was a family home and therefore, exempt from execution, and that being a conjugal
property, it cannot be made to answer for his personal obligations without any showing
that it had redounded to the bene t of the family. 18 The Makati RTC denied 19 Dante's
Omnibus Motion, ruling that Dante had belatedly raised the issues respecting the
conjugal nature of the subject property, and besides, the issue on whether the subject
property was a family home had already been previously resolved. 20 Moreover, he had
contracted the obligation while engaged in his business; hence, it can be presumed that
the conjugal partnership was bene ted. 21 Finally, the Makati RTC held that attachment
and levy on the subject property had been validly done. 22 Consequently, it directed the
issuance of a writ of possession in favor of respondents and ordered Dante and all
persons claiming rights under him to vacate the subject property. 23 Dante's motion for
reconsideration was denied, and there being no appeal taken therefrom, the Makati
RTC's disposition of the case became final. 24
On May 2, 2007, Teresita — Dante's wife — led before the Parañaque RTC a
complaint 25 against respondents, respondent Sheriff Ignacio, and the Register of
Deeds of Parañaque City, docketed as Civil Case No. 07-0134, for the nulli cation of the
auction sale and the cancellation of the certi cate of sale issued in favor of
respondents (nullification case). 26 CAIHTE

The Proceedings Before the Parañaque RTC

After due proceedings, the Parañaque RTC initially dismissed 27 the nulli cation
case on the ground of res judicata, ruling that the issues raised therein had already been
passed upon by the Makati RTC with Teresita's active and voluntary participation. 28
However, upon Teresita's motion for reconsideration, 29 the Parañaque RTC, in an Order
30 dated January 6, 2011, reversed its initial disposition and instead, nulli ed the
auction sale, the certi cate of sale, and the Final Deed of Sale in favor of respondents.
31 It held that Teresita was considered a third party in the collection case before the
Makati RTC, not having been impleaded therein together with her husband Dante, and
that the submission of her Af davit before the Makati RTC did not make her a party to
the said case. 32 Moreover, she had not waived her right to institute a separate action
to recover the subject property, and the nulli cation case was not, after all, barred by
res judicata. 33
Respondents' motion for reconsideration 34 was denied in an Order 35 dated
April 27, 2011, which they received on May 23, 2011. 36 Intending to le a petition for
certiorari before the CA, they led a Motion for Extension of Time 37 on June 2, 2011.
Eventually realizing their error, and apparently unaware that the CA had already denied
their motion for extension in an Order dated June 13, 2011, respondents withdrew their
motion for extension before the CA on June 17, 2011 and instead, simultaneously led
a Notice of Appeal 38 before the Parañaque RTC. Unfortunately, it was led ten (10)
days late. 39
In an Order 40 dated August 5, 2011, the Parañaque RTC denied the Notice of
Appeal for having been led out of time. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied in an Order 41 dated October 17, 2011. 42 Aggrieved, respondents led
a petition for certiorari 43 before the CA, arguing, inter alia, that the Parañaque RTC had
no jurisdiction and power to review the proceedings of a co-equal court.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 44 dated January 22, 2013, the CA granted the petition and directed
the Parañaque RTC to allow respondents' Notice of Appeal. While conceding that the
perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the CA nonetheless found meritorious and sound reasons for the exceptional allowance
of respondents' appeal. 45 It held that it was a more prudent course of action for the
Parañaque RTC to excuse respondents' technical lapse in order to afford the parties a
review of the case on appeal instead of disposing the case based on technicality. 46
Citing the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
judgments of a co-equal court, it found that the af rmance of the Parañaque RTC's
assailed issuances would allow Teresita's husband, Dante, to continue to evade his
obligations which was already nally adjudicated by the Makati RTC, a co-equal court
and the first one to take cognizance of the controversy, on the basis of technicality. 47
Teresita's motion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution 48 dated June
11, 2014; hence, this petition.
The Issues Before the Court
At the core of the issues advanced for the Court's resolution is the question of
whether or not the Parañaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability when it took
cognizance of the nulli cation case led by Teresita and declared as null and void the
auction sale, the certificate of sale, and the Final Deed of Sale in favor of respondents.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit.
In Barroso v. Omelio , 49 the Court explained the doctrine of judicial stability as
follows:
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders
or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration
of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of
another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief
sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of
jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders
judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion
of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its
incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment .
Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has
been issued is considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings on the
execution are still proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a writ of
execution has the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to correct
errors of its ministerial of cers and to control its own processes. To hold
otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the
resolution of incidents arising in execution proceedings. Splitting of jurisdiction
is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
To be sure, the law and the rules are not unaware that an issuing court
may violate the law in issuing a writ of execution and have recognized that there
should be a remedy against this violation. The remedy, however, is not the resort
to another co-equal body but to a higher court with authority to nullify the action
of the issuing court. This is precisely the judicial power that the 1987
Constitution, under Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of and which this
Court has operationalized through a petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)
To summarize, the various branches of the regional trial courts of a province or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 city, having as they do the same or equal authority and exercising as they do concurrent
and coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with
their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would
obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice. 50 DETACa

In this case, the Court nds that the Parañaque RTC violated the doctrine of
judicial stability when it took cognizance of Teresita's nulli cation case despite the fact
that the collection case from which it emanated falls within the jurisdiction of the
Makati RTC. Verily, the nulli cation case ought to have been dismissed at the outset for
lack of jurisdiction, as the Parañaque RTC is bereft of authority to nullify the levy and
sale of the subject property that was legitimately ordered by the Makati RTC, a
coordinate and co-equal court. In fact, the Parañaque RTC was already on the right
track when it initially dismissed the nulli cation case in its Decision 51 dated July 8,
2010. However, it changed its stance and reconsidered its disposition upon Teresita's
motion for reconsideration, thereby committing reversible error. To reiterate, the
determination of whether or not the levy and sale of a property in the execution of a
judgment was valid properly falls within the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the
judgment and issued the writ of execution. 52
Thus, Teresita's nulli cation case led before the Parañaque RTC was improper
and in glaring violation of the doctrine of judicial stability. The judgment rendered by the
Makati RTC in the collection case, as well as the execution thereof, and all other
incidents arising therefrom, may not be interfered with by the Parañaque RTC, a court of
concurrent jurisdiction, for the simple reason that the power to open, modify, or vacate
the said judgment or order is not only possessed but is restricted to the court in which
the judgment or order is rendered or issued. 53 Consequently, the Parañaque RTC
lacked jurisdiction over the same, rendering all the proceedings therein, as well as the
Decision and other orders issued thereon, void for lack of jurisdiction.
A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be
attacked anytime. It creates no rights and produces no effect. It remains a basic fact in
law that the choice of the proper forum is crucial, as the decision of a court or tribunal
without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no
judgment at all. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have
no legal effect. 54
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Order dated January 6, 2011
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 257 in Civil Case No. 07-
0134, the proceedings therein, as well as all orders issued thereafter are hereby
declared NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 10-46.

2. Id. at 51-63. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Noel G.
Tijam and Romeo F. Barza concurring.

3. Id. at 65-66.
4. Id. at 190-193. Penned by Judge Rolando G. How.

5. Id. at 194.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 6. Id. at 181-182. See also p. 55.
7. Id. at 52.
8. Id. See also pp. 93-95.

9. Id. See also p. 95.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 92-99. Penned by Pairing Judge Cesar D. Santamaria.

12. Id. at 84-86.

13. Id. at 79-83.

14. Id. at 53.
15. Id. at 89-90.

16. Id. at 53.

17. Id. at 137-144.

18. Id. at 53.

19. See Order dated January 8, 2007; id. at 272-277. Penned by Presiding Judge Encarnacion
Jaja G. Moya.
20. Id. at 53.
21. Id.

22. Id.
23. Id.

24. Id. at 54.

25. Id. at 109-120.

26. Id. at 54.

27. See Order dated July 8, 2010; id. at 153-162. Penned by Judge Rolando G. How.
28. Id. at 54.

29. Id. at 163-174.

30. Id. at 100-108.

31. Id. at 54. See also pp. 107-108.

32. Id. at 55.

33. Id.
34. Id. at 175-179.
35. Id. at 180.

36. Id. at 181.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 37. Id. at 184-185.

38. Id. at 181-182.

39. Id. at 55.
40. Id. at 190-193.

41. Id. at 194.

42. Id. at 55.

43. Id. at 202-223.

44. Id. at 51-63.
45. Id. at 57-58.
46. Id. at 58.

47. Id.
48. Id. at 65-66.
49. G.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015, citing Cabili v. Balindong , 672 Phil. 398, 406-409
(2011).
50. Spouses Ching v. CA , 446 Phil. 121, 129 (2003); Cojuangco v. Villegas , 263 Phil. 291, 297
(1990).
51. Rollo, pp. 153-162.
52. Spouses Ching v. CA, supra note 50, at 128-129.
53. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. CA, 454 Phil. 338, 369 (2003).

54. Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation, 629 Phil. 120, 133 (2010).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com