7/25/2019 Majestic Finance and Investment

1/5

.R. No. 197442 October 22, 2014

MAJESTIC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO., INC.,Petitioner,

vs.

JOSE D. TITO,Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ORNELIO MENDOZA !" #A$LINA CR$Z,Petitioners-Intervenors,

vs.JOSE NAZAL !" ROSITA NAZAL,Respondents-Intervenors.

D E C I S I O N

#ERLAS%&ERNA&E, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorariare the Decision!dated Octo"er #$, !$$% and

the Resol&tion#dated '&ne !!, !$ of the Co&rt of Appeals (CA) in CA-*.R. C+. No. %%,

which reversed and set aside the Orderdated '&l !%, !$$# of the Reional /rial Co&rt of PasiCit, 0ranch 12 (R/C) in Civil Case No. !234%, and re5anded the case to the co&rt a 6&o for

f&rther proceedins.

/he 7acts

Petitioner 8a9estic 7inance and Invest5ent Co., Inc. (8a9estic) was the 9&d5ent o"liee in

Civil Case No. !$4#%, a case for rescission of contract (rescission case) filed "efore the Co&rt of

7irst Instance of Ri:al, 0ranch ! (C7I), now the R/C. In order to satisf the 9&d5ent "defa&lt, the Sheriff levied &pon the propert of the 9&d5ent o"lior, /ho5as D. Cort (Cort),

covered " /ransfer Certificate of /itle (/C/) No. $2!4(s&"9ect propert), and sold the sa5eat a p&"lic a&ction to Pa&lina Cr&: (Cr&:), the hihest "idder, for a total "id price of 4,1$.$$.

After the rede5ption period had lapsed, Cr&: sec&red /C/ No. !% on 'an&ar , 32% in her

na5e and, thereafter, soldthe s&"9ect propert to Cornelio 8endo:a (8endo:a) who was iss&ed/C/ No. !22 on 'an&ar 3, 32%.1

On Nove5"er !, 322, respondent 'ose D. /ito (/ito) filed with the sa5e C7I aainst 8a9estic

a petition to declare the proceedins and the Decision in the rescission case n&ll and void,

doc;eted as Civil Case No. !234% (ann&l5ent case). 2est5oreland Co&nt, Pennslvania,

?nited States of A5erica.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt1

7/25/2019 Majestic Finance and Investment

2/5

Prior to the instit&tion of the ann&l5ent case, /ito had, however, alread trans5itted his interest

over the s&"9ect propert to spo&ses 'ose and Rosita Na:al (Sps. Na:al) on Septe5"er #,

322,!pro5ptin the latter to 9oin hi5 in the proceedins as intervenors, i5pleadin Cr&: and8endo:a on April !4, 323.#Earlier, or on 'an&ar 4,323, 8endo:a filed aainst Sps. Na:al a

case for forci"le entr and another case for recover of possession, which were dis5issed on

7e"r&ar !!, 323

and archived pendin the resol&tion ofthe ann&l5ent case,4

respectivel.

On A&&st 1, 323, the C7I allowed the intervention of Sps. Na:al in the ann&l5entcase,1which order event&all attained finalit as shown " the entr of 9&d5ent iss&ed " the

Co&rt on A&&st !3, 3%4 in *.R. No. =-13#4#.2In the interi5, the proceedins in the

ann&l5ent case were indefinitel s&spended.%

On Dece5"er 3, 3%2, Sps. Na:al 5oved that the ann&l5ent case "e set for pre-trial "&t the

5otion was not acted &pon.3It appears that the records were a5on those &tted " fire on '&ne

, 3%%, and none of the parties or the co&rt did anthin for a period of al5ost eleven ()

ears.!$8eanwhile, Sps. Na:al re5ained in possession of the s&"9ect propert. !So5eti5e in

33%, Sps. Na:al received s&55ons in an &nlawf&l detainer case filed " the new reisteredowners of the s&"9ect propert, spo&ses 8ariano and Rhodora =i5 (Sps. =i5),!!which apparentl

pro5pted Sps. Na:al to set the ann&l5ent case for hearin. =earnin of the loss of the records,Sps. Na:al 5oved for reconstit&tion!#of 9&dicial records and for revival!of the proceedins in

the ann&l5ent case, which was opposed " 8a9estic. =ater, 8a9estic filed an ?rent 8otion to

Declare Case as alread Closed and /er5inated with Opposition to Revive theCase,!4contendin, a5on others, that /ito, the principal petitioner in the ann&l5ent case, had

lost interest in prosec&tin the case and that Sps. Na:al have no personalit to f&rther prosec&te

the sa5e.!1

In another proceedin, Sps. Na:al opposed the &nlawf&l detainer case filed " Sps. =i5 all the

wa tothe Co&rt, "&t to no avail.

!2

/he R/C Proceedins

In an Order!%dated 7e"r&ar !, !$$$ (7e"r&ar !, !$$$ Order), the R/C dis5issed the

ann&l5ent case withpre9&dice, and declared it closed and ter5inated for fail&re of /ito and Sps.

Na:al to prosec&te their clai5 for an &nexplained and &nreasona"le lenth of ti5e.!3It held thatwhile it was inc&5"ent &pon the Cler; of Co&rt to incl&de the case in the trial calendar, set the

date for trial, and notif the parties thereof, these did not relieve the plaintiff of his d&t to

prosec&te the case dilientl and to call the attention of the co&rt to calendar the case if the latterhas nelected to do so "eca&se of the n&5ero&s cases it has to attend to.#$

?pon Sps. Na:al@s 5otion for reconsideration,#however, the R/C, in an Order#!dated A&&st

!#, !$$! (A&&st !#,!$$! Order), set aside its earlier dis5issal order in the interest of 9&stice.

It held that as "oth 8a9estic and Sps. Na:al were &ilt of inaction since 3%2 after the latter@s8otion to Set Case for Pre-/rial was filed, no one sho&ld "e allowed to "enefit fro5 the other

and the case 5&st "e allowed to proceed on the 5erits,##especiall in this case where Sps. Na:al

has a 5aterial interest s&ch that it wo&ld "e the5, not /ito, who wo&ld "e "enefited or in9&red "the 9&d5ent in the said case.#

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt34

7/25/2019 Majestic Finance and Investment

3/5

Dissatisfied, 8a9estic 5oved for reconsideration#4on Septe5"er !2, !$$!, which was ranted in

an Order#1dated '&l !%, !$$# ('&l !%, !$$# Order), declarin the 7e"r&ar !, !$$$ Order to "e

final and exec&tor. /he R/C r&led that an intervention is rearded as 5ere collateral oraccessor, or ancillar to the oriinal action, s&chthat the dis5issal of the oriinal case

necessaril incl&des that of the petition-in-intervention.#2It f&rther held that even if Sps. Na:al

were to "e consideredas real parties-in-interest, the "etter re5ed for the5 is to file a separateaction, as principal plaintiffs, aainst 8a9estic.#%

Arieved, Sps. Na:al elevated the 5atter "efore the CA. #3

/he CA R&lin

In a Decision$dated Octo"er #$, !$$%, the CA reversed and set aside the R/C@s '&l !%, !$$#

Order, holdin that Sps. Na:al are entitled to proceed with the prosec&tion of their ca&se ofaction aainst 8a9estic after havin "een d&l allowed to intervene in the ann&l5ent case.It

f&rther held that to re6&ire Sps. Na:al to refile another case for the settle5ent of their clai5 will

res&lt in &nnecessar dela and expense, and will entail 5&ltiplicit of s&its, hence, defeat thever p&rpose of intervention, i.e., to hear and deter5ine at the sa5e ti5eall conflictin clai5s

which 5a "e 5ade on the s&"9ect 5atter in litiation,and to expedite litiation and settle in one

action and " a sinle 9&d5ent the whole controvers a5on the persons

involved.!Accordinl, it re5anded the case to the R/C for f&rther proceedins.#

8a9estic@s 5otion for reconsiderationwas denied " the CA in a Resol&tion4dated '&ne !!,

!$, hence, the instant petition.

/he Iss&e 0efore the Co&rt

/he essential iss&e for the Co&rt@s resol&tion is whether or not the CA erred in allowin Sps.Na:al to prosec&te their clai5 aainst 8a9estic.

/he Co&rt@s R&lin

/he petition is 5eritorio&s.

Sps. Na:al, who were 9oined as intervenors in the proceedins, had alread lost their riht to

participate therein, in view of the R/C@s dis5issal of the 5ain action which was decreed

p&rs&ant to Section #, R&le 2 of the R&les of Co&rt,1ste55in fro5 the fail&re of the p&tativeplaintiff, /ito, to dilientl and expeditio&sl prosec&tethe sa5e for an &n9&stified and

&nreasona"le lenth of ti5e. Case law states that intervention is never an independent action, "&tis 5erel ancillar and s&pple5ental to the existin litiation.1wphi1 Its p&rpose is not too"str&ct or &nnecessaril dela the placid operation of the 5achiner of trial, "&t 5erel to

afford one not an oriinal part, who is clai5in a certain riht or interest in the pendin case,

the opport&nit to appear and "e 9oined so he co&ld assert or protect s&ch riht or interests. Inother words, the riht of an interven or sho&ld onl "e in aid of the riht of the oriinal part.

/h&s, as a eneral r&le,2where the riht of the latter has ceased to exist, there is nothin to aid or

fiht for and, conse6&entl, the riht of intervention ceases.%

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_197442_2014.html#fnt48

7/25/2019 Majestic Finance and Investment

4/5

It "ears pointin o&t that, despite havin "een 9oined in the ann&l5ent case as intervenors, Sps.

Na:al sho&ld have act&all "een dee5ed as the case@s plaintiffs considerin that /itohad alread

transferred his interest over the disp&ted propert to the for5er, even prior to the instit&tion ofthe proceedins. +eril, where a transfer of interest was effected "efore the co55ence5ent of

the s&it B as in this case B the transferee 5&st necessaril "e the plaintiff (or defendant, as the

case 5a "e)3

as it is he who stands to "e "enefited or in9&red " the 9&d5ent in thes&it.4$/h&s, on the s&pposition that the were the case@s plaintiffs, Sps. Na:al sho&ld "ear the

o"liation i5p&ted " the R/C &pon /ito to dilientl and expeditio&sl prosec&te the action

within a reasona"le lenth of ti5e. /he R/C, however, pointed o&t that Sps. Na:al failed in thisreard. As the records wo&ld "ear, while Sps. Na:al 5oved to set the case for pre-trial on

Dece5"er 3, 3%2, no f&rther action was ta;en " the5 after the co&rt a 6&o failed to calendar

the case and set the sa5e for pre-trial. Disconcertin is the fact that it too; Sps. Na:al al5ost

eleven () ears, or on Octo"er !$, 33% to 5ove for the settin of the case for hearin, as thewere apparentl co5pelled to act onl &pon the threat of "ein dispossessed of the s&"9ect

propert with the filin of the &nlawf&l detainer case " the new reistered owners, Sps. =i5.

Nota"l, while &nder "oth the present4and the old4!R&les of Co&rt, the cler; of co&rt has the

d&t to set the case for pre-trial, the sa5e does not relieve the plaintiffsof their own d&t toprosec&te the case dilientl.4#/r&th "e told, the expeditio&s disposition of cases is as 5&ch the

d&t of the plaintiff as the co&rt.4

7&rther5ore, the Co&rt has per&sed the records and fo&nd no s&fficient 9&stification for Sps.Na:als inordinatel lon inaction over the ann&l5ent case. Other than the alleation that their

co&nsel ass&red the5 that their clai5 of ownership was well-fo&nded,44the failed to even offer

an explanation as to wh the had to wait for 5ore than a decade to proceed with the case. As theCo&rt sees it, this is an &nreasona"l lon ti5e for the defendant to wait for the o&tco5e of a trial

that has et to co55ence, especiall as the case had "een filed " their predecessor-in-interest,

/ito, as earl as Nove5"er !, 322.41

All told, whether one treats Sps. Na:al as 5ere intervenors or, properl spea;in, as the plaintiffsin the ann&l5ent case, the Co&rt finds no coent reason as to wh the sa5e sho&ld not "e

dis5issed. In fine, Sps. Na:al are precl&ded fro5 prosec&tin their clai5 aainst 8a9estic.

>

7/25/2019 Majestic Finance and Investment

5/5

CASTRO

Associate '&sticeAssociate '&stice

JOSE #ORT$'AL #EREZ

Associate '&stice

C E R / I 7 I C A / I O N

P&rs&ant to Section #, Article +III of the Constit&tion, I certif that the concl&sions in the a"ove

Decision had "een reached in cons&ltation "efore the cases were assined to the writer of the

opinion of the Co&rts Division.

MARIA LO$RDES #. A. SERENO

Chief '&stice