FIRST DIVISION In its answer, CTDC averred, among others, that (1) Araceli

Bumatay has no legal personality to file the action for revival

[G.R. NO. 154739 : January 23, 2007] of judgment; (2) there is a pending litigation between CTDC
and PROSECOR involving Block 40; and (3) other entities
ROGELIO (ROGER) PANOTES (thru ARACELI like the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas and Provident Savings
BUMATAY, as successor-in-interest), Petitioner, v. CITY Bank have existing liens over Block 40.
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent. On October 15, 1991, the HLURB, through Housing and Land
Use Arbiter Charito M. Bunagan, rendered its Decision in
DECISION favor of Bumatay, reviving the NHA Resolution and declaring
Block 40 of the Provident Village as "open space" for the said
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: subdivision, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals rendered declaring Block 40 (with an area of 22,916 square
meters) of the Subdivision Plan Pcs-5683 of the Provident
dated January 29, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 52621 and its
Resolution2 dated August 5, 2002 denying the motion for Villages located at Marikina, Metro Manila as the legally
mandated "open space" for said subdivision project; and the
reconsideration.
Register of Deeds for Marikina is hereby directed to cause the
annotation of this fact on the corresponding Torrens Title
This case stemmed from a complaint filed with the National
which describes and covers said open space; said area to be
Housing Authority (NHA) in April 1979 by Rogelio (Roger)
reserved and utilized exclusively in the manner and for the
Panotes, petitioner, then president of the Provident Village
purposes provided for under P.D. N0. 957 and P.D. No. 1216.4
Homeowners Association, Inc., against Provident Securities
Corporation (PROSECOR), owner-developer of the Provident
Furthermore, let a Cease and Desist Order be, as it is hereby,
Village in Marikina City. The complaint, docketed as NHA
Case No. 4175, alleges that PROSECOR violated Sections 19, issued against respondent Provident Securities Corp. and City
Townhouse Development Corporation, restraining said
20, 21, 38, and 39 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957.3 One
of the violations complained of was its failure to provide an respondents, and all persons, agents, or other associations or
corporate entities acting on their behalf, from asserting or
open space in the said subdivision.
perpetrating any or further acts of dominion or claim over said
Block 40, Pcs-5683, the open space allocated and reserved for
During the proceedings before the NHA, an ocular inspection
the Provident Villages in Marikina, Metro Manila.
showed that the subdivision has no open space. The NHA
found, however, that Block 40, with an area of 22,916 square
IT IS SO ORDERED.
meters, could be utilized as open space. Thus, in its Resolution
dated August 14, 1980, the NHA directed PROSECOR to
provide the Provident Village an open space which is Block On appeal to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, Arbiter
40. Bunagan's Decision was affirmed with modification in the
sense that CTDC has the right to recover from PROSECOR
"what it has lost."
In a letter of the same date, then NHA Acting General
Manager Antonio A. Fernando ordered PROSECOR to
"provide Block 40 of the subdivision as open space." After its motion for reconsideration was denied, CTDC then
interposed an appeal to the Office of the President (OP). On
PROSECOR was served copies of the NHA Resolution and February 10, 1999, the OP rendered its Decision affirming in
toto the judgment of the HLURB Board of Commissioners.
the letter on August 22, 1980.
CTDC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in
a Resolution dated April 14, 1999.
Considering that PROSECOR did not appeal from the NHA
Resolution, it became final and executory.
CTDC then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for
Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as
When Panotes filed a motion for execution of the NHA
amended, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 52621.
Resolution, it was found that the records of the case were
"mysteriously missing." Hence, his motion "was provisionally
In a Resolution5 dated May 10, 1999, the Court of Appeals
dismissed" without prejudice.
dismissed CTDC's petition for its failure to attach thereto a
certification against forum shopping. The Court of Appeals
Meanwhile, PROSECOR sold to City Townhouse
also found that the petition was not supported by certified true
Development Corporation (CTDC), respondent, several lots in
copies of such material portions of the records and other
the subdivision. Among the lots sold were those comprising
pertinent papers referred to in the petition.
Block 40. CTDC was unaware of the NHA Resolution
ordering PROSECOR to have Block 40 utilized as open space
CTDC filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed
of Provident Village.
by Bumatay.
Eventually, Panotes was succeeded by Araceli Bumatay as
On June 10, 1999, CTDC submitted to the Court of Appeals a
president of the Provident Village Homeowners Association,
Inc. On July 17, 1990, she filed with the Housing and Land certification of non-forum shopping as well as the pleadings
mentioned in its Resolution.
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for revival of the
NHA Resolution dated August 14, 1980. Impleaded therein as
defendant was CTDC, whom she alleged as successor-in-
interest of PROSECOR.
On July 27, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution of one (1) hectare or more, the owner shall reserve thirty
granting CTDC's motion for reconsideration and reinstated its percent (30%) of the gross area for open space.
petition.
xxx xxx xxx. crvll
On January 29, 2002, the appellate court rendered its Decision
reversing the Decision of the OP and dismissing the complaint Clearly, providing an open space within the subdivision
for revival of judgment, thus: remains to be the obligation of PROSECOR, the owner-
developer and the real party-in-interest in the case for revival
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, finding merit in this of judgment. As aptly held by the Court of Appeals:
Petition for Review, the assailed Decision of the Office of the
President dated February 10, 1999, together with its Quintessentially, the real party-in-interest in the revival of
Resolution dated February 14, 1999 are REVERSED and SET NHA Case No. 4175 is PROSECOR and not CTDC.
ASIDE, and a new one entered dismissing HLRB Case No. PROSECOR was the lone defendant or respondent in that case
REM-071790-4052 (NHA Case No. 4175; HLRB Case No. against whom judgment was rendered. To insist that CTDC is
REM-A-1089). Costs against the respondent. a successor-in-interest of PROSECOR may have some truth if
we are talking about the ownership of the lots sold by
SO ORDERED. PROSECOR in favor of CTDC as a result of a civil action
between the two. But then, to hold CTDC as the successor-in-
The basic issue for our resolution is whether the NHA interest of PROSECOR as the developer of the subdivision, is
Resolution dated August 14, 1980 may be enforced against far from realty. CTDC is simply on the same footing as any lot
CTDC. buyer-member of PVHIA. x x x.

An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural Furthermore, strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by
means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which the judgment rendered by a court. It will not divest the rights
has become dormant after the passage of five years without it of a party who has not and never been a party to a litigation.
being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It is not Execution of a judgment can be issued only against a party to
intended to re-open any issue affecting the merits of the the action and not against one who did not have his day in
judgment debtor's case nor the propriety or correctness of the court.7
first judgment.6
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the
Here, the original judgment or the NHA Resolution sought to assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
be revived was between Rogelio Panotes and PROSECOR, CA-G.R. SP No. 52621. Costs against petitioner.
not between petitioner Araceli Bumatay and respondent
CTDC. SO ORDERED.

In maintaining that CTDC is bound by the NHA Resolution,

petitioner claims that CTDC is the successor-in-interest of
PROSECOR and, therefore, assumed the obligations of the
latter to provide an open space for Provident Village.

CTDC purchased from PROSECOR Block 40 in the said

village, not as an owner-developer like PROSECOR, but as an
ordinary buyer of lots. Even after the sale, CTDC did not
become an owner-developer. The Deed of Sale executed by
CTDC, as buyer, and PROSECOR, as seller, shows that the
subject matter of the sale is the unsold lots comprising Block
40 within the subdivision to CTDC. The contract does not
include the transfer of rights of PROSECOR as owner-
developer of the said subdivision. Clearly, there is no basis to
conclude that CTDC is the successor-in-interest of
PROSECOR.

It bears stressing that when CTDC bought Block 40, there was
no annotation on PROSECOR's title showing that the property
is encumbered. In fact, the NHA Resolution was not annotated
thereon. CTDC is thus a buyer in good faith and for value, and
as such, may not be deprived of the ownership of Block 40.
Verily, the NHA Resolution may not be enforced against
CTDC.

Section 2 of P.D. No. 1216 provides:

Section 2. Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 is hereby

amended to read as follows:

Section 31. Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open Spaces. -

The owner or developer of a subdivision shall provide
adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks. For subdivision projects