Muñoz v. Yabut / Muñoz v. Chan

Facts:

In G.R. No. 142676, Muñoz is seeking the reversal, annulment, and setting aside of the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Orders of RTC Branch 88 of Quezon City.  The RTC dismissed the Civil Case, the forcible entry case instituted by Muñoz against Atty. Yabut and Samuel Go Chan before the MeTC Branch 33 of Quezon City; and nullified the MeTC Order granting Muñoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which restored possession of the subject property to Muñoz.

In G.R. No. 146718, Muñoz is praying for the reversal, setting aside, and nullification of the CA, which affirmed the Orders of the RTC Branch 95 denying Muñoz's Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297 against respondents BPI and the spouses Samuel Go Chan and spouses Chan.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the decision of the RTC.

Held:

In Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, 42 we described an action for reconveyance as follows: An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.

The rule is that: (1) a judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate of a will; and (2) a judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon strangers.  A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam; it is binding only against the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.  An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.  Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.