Facts: 

Petitioner Lorenzana was renting a parcel of land which she later purchased from the Manila Railroad Company (later from the Bureau of Lands). Respondent Cayetano, on the other hand, was renting the adjacent land. Lorenzana had her property leased to tenants. Due to nonpayment of rents, she filed 12 ejectment cases against the tenants. Lorenzana won in the case and secured a writ of demolition upon the tenants' refusal to vacate the premises. Lorenzana, her lawyer Atty. Paculdo, and the sheriff entered the premises of the Cayetano and in spite of the latter's protests that she was not a party to the ejectment cases and that her premises was not subject of said ejectment cases, the three destroyed the latter's fence, carted away the materials thereof and built another fence in the latter's premises. Cayetano filed a petition to declare Lorenzana, Atty. Paculdo and Sheriff Cruz in contempt and holding them liable in damages. The presiding judge held the motion in abeyance until the decision of the court in the ejectment cases shall have been rendered. Cayetano later withdrew the petition for contempt and filed an action for damages againat the three. The lower court dismissed the complaint but the CA reversed the decision. 

Lorenzana appealed, contending that Cayetano having voluntarily appeared before the court and invoked its jurisdiction seeking affirmative relief by filing a petition to declare Lorenzana, Atty. Paculdo and Sheriff Cruz in contempt and holding them liable in damages, and by filing an urgent petition for the suspension of the execution of the writ of demolition, she could no longer contest the efficacy of the writ. 

Issue:

Can the writ of demolition be legally effected against Cayetano ?

Held: 

No. It must be noted that respondent was not a party to any of the 12 ejectment cases wherein the writs of demolition had been issued; she did not make her appearance in and during the pendency of these ejectment cases. Respondent only went to court to protect her property from demolition after the judgment in the ejectment cases had become final and executory. Hence, with respect to the judgment in said ejectment cases, respondent remains a third person to such judgement, which does not bind her; nor can its writ of execution be enforced against her since she was not afforded her day in court in said ejectment cases. 

The vital legal point here is that respondent did not derive her right or interest from the defendants-tenants nor from the plaintiff-landlord (the herein petitioner) but from the Bureau of Lands from which she had leased the property. She is neither a party nor successor in interest to any of the litigants in the ejectment cases.

It cannot be said that the constitutional requirements of due process were sufficiently complied with because the respondent had been duly heard. Indeed, respondent was heard but simply hearing her did not fulfill the basic conditions of procedural due process in courts. When respondent appeared before the court to protect and preserve her property, the Court had not lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the property of the respondent because the premises of the respondent was not included in the ejectment cases and the judgment in said cases could not affect her property, much less demolish the same. Lorenzana vs. Cayetano, G.R. No. L-37051, August 3l, 1977