● An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein judgment is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. However, this rule admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit where he is any of the following:
- trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment;
- guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant;
- transferee pendente lite;
- sublessee;
- co-lessee; or
- member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant. Bichoso vs. Marero, A.M. No. P-01-1527, April 22, 2002
● An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein judgment is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. Petitioners were not made party-defendants by the Nisperoses. Hence, they can be bound by said judgment in the ejectment suit, even if they were not impleaded as defendants, only if they are shown to be (a) trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guests or other occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) transferees pendente lite; (d) sub-lessees; (e) co-lessees; or (f) members of the family, relatives and other privies of the defendant. In such cases, court hearing is a must to determine the character of such possession. If the execution court finds that they are mere successors-in-interest, guests, or agents of the defendant, the order of execution shall be enforced against them. Calixtro vs. Gonzales, et. al., G.R. No. 169047, November 3, 2008
● 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 judgment, 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. Lorenzana vs. Cayetano, G.R. No. L-37051, August 3l, 1977
Read: Lorenzana vs. Cayetano Case Digest
● 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 judgment, 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. Lorenzana vs. Cayetano, G.R. No. L-37051, August 3l, 1977
Read: Lorenzana vs. Cayetano Case Digest
0 Comments
Post a Comment