9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 397

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 142037. October 18, 2004.

Spouses EDGARDO and CECILIA GONZAGA, petitioners,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses ALFONSO and
LETICIA ABAGAT, respondents.

Jurisdictions; Judgments; Scope; The rule is that a party is

entitled only to such relief consistent with and limited to that
sought by the pleadings or incidental thereto.—We agree with the
petitioners that a judgment should be complete by itself. It should
not leave open any judicial question to be determined by others.
The Court is to dispose finally of the litigation so as to preclude
further litigation between the parties on the same subject matter
thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits between the parties and
their privies and successors-in-interests. However, the Court has
no authority to roam at will and grant relief to the parties
prescinding from their pleadings and prayers. The rule is that a
party is entitled only to such relief consistent with and limited to
that sought by the pleadings or incidental thereto. A trial court
would be acting beyond its jurisdiction if it grants relief to a party
beyond the scope of the pleadings. Moreover, the right of a party
to recover depends, not on the prayer, but on the scope of the
pleadings, the issues made and the law. A judg-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

ment which determines questions not within the court’s

jurisdiction, because not in issue, is, to that extent, void. There is
no principle better established than that what is not juridically
presented cannot be juridically decided. Also, where a party has
prayed only for specific relief or reliefs as to a specific subject
matter, usually no different relief may be granted. A judgment
which grants reliefs of a character not sought is void. Where a
prayer for general relief is added to the demand of specific relief,
the court may grant such other appropriate relief as may be
consistent with the allegations and proofs.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. for petitioners.
Diosdado V. Calonge for respondents.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

1
This is a petition for the review of the Decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48687
filed by the Spouses Edgardo and Cecilia Gonzaga.

The Antecedents

On October 22, 1991, the respondents, Spouses Abagat,

filed a complaint against the petitioners, Spouses Gonzaga,
for the recovery of possession of a parcel of land identified
as Lot 11, Block No. 15. The lot was located in Baclaran,
Parañaque, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. 128186 issued in their names, as owners.
The respondents alleged, inter alia in their complaint
that they were the owners of a small hut (barong-barong)
con-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Fidel P. Purisima (now a retired

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court), with Associate Justices Corona
Ibay-Somera and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (both retired), concurring.

399

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 399

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

structed on the said lot, which was then owned by the

government. On February 22, 1961, when he was still
single, the respondent Alfonso Abagat filed an application
for a sales patent over the said parcel of land. The hut was,
however, gutted by fire on January 26, 1973. According to
the respondents, after the fire the Spouses Miguel and
Violeta Gregorio built a two-storey house on the property
without their consent. As such, they filed a complaint for
ejectment against the Spouses Gregorio but the complaint
was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because in their
answer to the complaint, the petitioners therein claimed
ownership over the house. Thereafter, the Spouses
Gregorio sold the house to the petitioners for P100,000.00
under a deed of conditional sale, in which Spouses Gregorio
undertook to secure an award of the land by the
government in favor of the petitioners. On January 2, 1986,
the Bureau of Lands granted the application of respondent
Alfonso Abagat for a sales patent over the property on the
basis of which TCT No. 128186 was issued by the Register
of Deeds to and in his name. The respondents demanded
that the petitioners vacate the property, but the latter
refused to do so. The respondents prayed that judgment be
rendered in their favor, thus:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

before this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of
the plaintiffs—

1. Ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights

under them to vacate Lot 11, Block 15 located at 2063
Bagong Sikat Street, Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila
and to demolish at their own expense the house
constructed thereon;

Ordering the defendants:

a) to pay P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus P500.00 as

appearance fee for every court hearing;
b) to pay P45,500.00 as compensatory damages representing
the unearned rentals on the subject premises from

400

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

March 1984 to October 1991, and P500.00 as land rental every

month thereafter;

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

c) to pay P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;

d) to pay the costs of this suit.

PLAINTIFFS pray for such other and 2

further reliefs as may
deemed (sic) equitable in the premises.”

In their Answer to the complaint, the petitioners averred

that they purchased the house from the Spouses Gregorio
for P100,000.00 under a deed of conditional sale with the
understanding that Miguel Gregorio would secure an
award in their favor over the lot. However, the Spouses
Gregorio failed to do so. Thereafter, they and the Spouses
Gregorio executed a Deed of Final and Absolute Sale over
the property. According to the petitioners, their refusal to
vacate the property was justified in view of the
Memorandum of Agreement executed between them and
the Spouses Gregorio, whereby they agreed to rescind the
deeds of conditional sale and final and absolute sale they
earlier executed. The said agreement was made in
consideration of the refund of the amount of P90,000.00 to
take place on or before December 15, 1991, which amount
was earlier paid by them to the Spouses Gregorio under the
deed of conditional sale. Until then, the petitioners alleged,
they had the right to remain in the property. The
petitioners prayed that the court render judgment in their
favor, thus:

“1) Dismissing the complaint for lack of merit;

2) Awarding defendants moral damages in such
amount as may be proven during the trial and
exemplary damages in such amount as may be
awarded by this Honorable Court;
3) Ordering plaintiff to pay the cost of suit.

Defendants likewise 3pray for such other relief just and equitable
under the premises.”

_______________

2 Records, pp. 4-5.

3 Id., at pp. 62-63.

401

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 401

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

On September 29, 1992, the petitioners filed a motion for

leave to file a third-party complaint against the Spouses
Gregorio, appending thereto the said third-party complaint.
They prayed that judgment be rendered in their favor,
thus:

“WHEREFORE, Third-Party Plaintiffs pray for judgment

ordering Third-Party Defendants to indemnify Third-Party
Plaintiffs for whatever is adjudged, if any, against the latter in
favor of Plaintiffs in the main case now pending with this court.
“FURTHER, praying for4 such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable.”

The petitioners likewise appended a copy of the deed of

conditional sale executed between them and the third-party
defendants which contained the following terms, among
others:

“11. The VENDOR herein shall bear the costs of notarization of

this deed of conditional sale.
12. The VENDOR herein warrants that he is the legal owner in
full, without any lien and encumbrance, of such house, and the
VENDOR herein warrants to defend his ownership over such
house against unlawful claims by any third parties. The VENDOR
herein further warrants to indemnify the VENDEE herein for any
material damage
5
that may be caused by any unlawful claims from
third parties.

Even before the Court could resolve the said motion, the
Spouses Gregorio filed their Answer to the Third-Party
Complaint, alleging that the petitioners were entitled to
indemnify them for any award which may be adjudicated in
favor of the respondents. Thus:

“WHEREFORE, herein third-party defendants voluntarily

manifest their full admission of the truth and veracity of the
entirety of Pars. 1 to 9 of the Third-Party Complaint, and that the
defen-

_______________

4 Id., at p. 142.
5 Id., at p. 145.

402

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

dants/third-party plaintiffs are entitled to the legal benefit of

indemnity or subrogation, as against the herein third-party
6
defendants, under Sec. 12, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court.”

Although he was already the counsel of the petitioners,

Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. entered 7
his appearance as
counsel of the Spouses Gregorio. The latter, with the
assistance of Atty. Laserna, Jr., likewise, filed a motion for
intervention and filed their Answer-In-Intervention in
which they alleged that the respondents were able to
secure a sales patent over the residential lot in question
through fraud
8
and deceit; and prayed that the complaint be
dismissed.
On November 12, 1992, the trial court issued an Order
granting the motion of the Spouses Gregorio to intervene
and admitting their Answer-in-Intervention. The trial
court also granted the respondents’ motion to strike off the
appearance of Atty. Laserna, Jr. as counsel of the Spouses
Gregorio as he was already the petitioners’ counsel of
record. The trial court, however, no longer resolved the
motion of the petitioners for leave to file a third-party
complaint against the Spouses Gregorio.

The Evidence for the Respondents

On February 22, 1961, respondent Alfonso Abagat, then

single, filed a sales application patent over a residential lot,
particularly Lot 11, Block 15, Bagong
9
Isla Subd., Baclaran,
Parañaque, Rizal, Philippines. He built a house thereon
and declared
10
the house for taxation purposes beginning
1961. He later paid the 11
realty taxes for the house for the
period of 1969 to 1970.

_______________

6 Id., at p. 135.
7 Records, pp. 132-133.
8 Id., at pp. 154-157.
9 Id., at p. 7.
10 Id., at p. 9.
11 Id., at p. 11.

403

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 403

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

Pending the processing of his sales patent application,

respondent Alfonso Abagat leased the hut to the Spouses
Miguel and Violeta Gregorio at a monthly rental of seventy
pesos (P70.00). On January 26, 1973, the house was
destroyed by fire. The Spouses Gregorio, along with the
other residents, near the area were evacuated to the
Baclaran Elementary School.
In light of the certification of the Committee on
Resettlement of Baclaran Fire Victims, on February 28,
1973, the respondents were allowed to return to the
property and to build a make-shift house out of the ruins.
They allowed his nephew, Roberto “Boy” Abagat, to occupy
the said “house,” but for some reason, he left and resettled
somewhere.
In August 1973, the Spouses Gregorio, surreptitiously
occupied the abandoned make-shift house of the
respondents. The couple “remodeled” the make-shift
structure into a two-storey house. On April 7, 1977, the
respondents, thru counsel, demanded payment of rental for
his house for the period from 1976 to March 1977
amounting to P350.00 but Miguel Gregorio offered to pay
only the amount of P280.00 which the plaintiffs refused.
On April 25, 1977, Miguel Gregorio wrote respondent
Alfonso Abagat that, in view of his persistent refusal to
accept the amount of P280 for the rent covering the period
of January12
to April 1977, he would consign the amount to
the court.
Respondent Alfonso Abagat filed a complaint with the
Municipal Trial Court of Parañaque for unlawful detainer
against the Spouses Gregorio, docketed as Civil Case No.
3898. On January 14, 1983, the court rendered13
a decision
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Unknown to Alfonso Abagat, the Spouses Gregorio, as
vendors, and the Spouses Edgardo and Cecilia D. Gonzaga,
as vendees, executed a Deed of Conditional Sale over the
house

_______________

12 Exhibit “F”; Records, p. 284.

13 Records, p. 69.

404

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

for the price of P100,000.00 under the following terms and

conditions:

“. . .

“2. The VENDOR herein hereby acknowledges receipt of the

amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00),
Philippine currency, in cash, from the VENDEE herein, as
part and representing the FIRST DOWNPAYMENT.
“3. The VENDEE herein shall remit and pay to the VENDOR
herein the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P10,000.00), Philippine Currency, in cash, within the
month of May, 1984, as part of and representing the
SECOND DOWNPAYMENT of this sale.
“4. The VENDOR herein shall apply, file with and work for
the issuance, approval and release of the government
order, decree and award of the official ownership over the
government land on which the said house now stands in
favor of the VENDOR, after which, the VENDOR herein
shall transfer such right over said government award to
and in favor of the VENDEE herein.
“5. Upon the approval, release and issuance of such
government award, as mentioned in the immediately
preceding paragraph, the VENDEE herein shall remit and
pay to the VENDOR herein the amount of FORTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00), Philippine Currency,
in cash, as part of and representing the FINAL AND
FULL PAYMENT in settlement in full of the obligation of
the VENDEE.
“6. The VENDOR herein shall see to it that such government
award of ownership over the government land on which
the said house now stands shall be made, done and
processed by the concerned government agency with
utmost speed and facility.
“7. The VENDOR herein shall shoulder all the official and
incidental costs and fees relative to the filing and
application
14
for, and the processing of, such government
award.”

During the period of April 13, 1984 to July 11, 1985, Miguel
Gregorio received
15
from the petitioners the total amount of
P55,000.00 thereby leaving a balance of P30,000.00. For

_______________

14 Id., at pp. 221-222.

15 Exhibits “2” to “2-C.”

405
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 405

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

Miguel Gregorio’s failure to secure an award from the

government, as agreed upon, they further agreed to reduce
the balance of the purchase price of the house to
P25,000.00. Petitioner Edgardo Gonzaga paid to Miguel
Gregorio following the latter’s execution on July 12, 1985 of
a Deed of Final and Absolute Sale in favor of Edgardo
Gonzaga, under the following terms and conditions:

“1. That the VENDOR shall exert utmost effort,

diligence and speed in securing a government
award over the said property for subsequent
transfer to the VENDEE within one (1) year from
the execution hereof;
“2. That all costs and expenses relative to such
government award shall be for the account of the
VENDOR;
“3. That all costs and expenses relative to the
execution of this Deed of Final and Absolute Sale
shall be for the account of the VENDOR;
“4. That all costs and expenses for the future or
subsequent issuance of Torrens Title over the said
property shall be for the account of the VENDEE;
“5. That the VENDOR hereby grants and affords the
VENDEE a WARRANTY AGAINST EVICTION,
and that the VENDOR shall be liable to the
VENDEE for damages that might arise from any
false representations as to the prior validity of her
rights, interest,
16
or ownership over the said
property.”

When Miguel Gregorio learned that respondent Alfonso

Abagat had earlier filed an application for a sales patent
over the property, he and petitioner Edgardo Gonzaga filed
a protest in the Bureau of Lands. On January 2, 1986, the
Bureau of Lands rendered a decision ordering the dismissal
of the protest and granting the application of respondent
Alfonso Abagat for a sales patent. The Spouses Gonzaga
were, likewise, ordered to vacate the property. The decretal
portion of the said decision reads:

_______________

16 Records, pp. 228-229.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

406

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

“WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the protest filed by spouses

Miguel Gregorio and Violeta Gregorio against the Insular
Government Property Sales Application No. (IV-1) 191 of Alfonso
Abagat be as hereby it is, dismissed and this once, dropped from
the records. Protestants and their privies the spouses Edgardo
Gonzaga and Cecilia Gonzaga, are hereby directed to vacate the
land in question and remove whatever improvements introduced
thereon within sixty (60) days from a receipt of a copy hereof. The
I.C.P.S.A. No.
17
(IV-1) 191 of Alfonso Abagat shall be given further
due course.”

After the decision of the Bureau of Lands had become final

and executory, respondent Alfonso Abagat filed motions for
execution of the decision and the demolition of the house
thereon on August 12, 1986 and February 17, 1987.
On May 22, 1987, the Bureau of Lands issued an Order
of Execution directing the District Land Officer:

“WHEREFORE, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 1844 of

the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3077,
you are hereby enjoined to repair to the premises of the land in
question and enforce the aforementioned decision by ordering the
claimants-protestants, their tenants, relatives and all those acting
for and in their behalf to vacate the said land, remove their
improvements therefrom and placing the applicant-respondent in
peaceful possession thereof.
“In complying herewith, you should set forth the whole
proceeding in writing signed by the parties and witnesses, if
possible, and submit the returns to this Office within sixty (60)
days from this date to be used as evidence should it be necessary
to institute action, criminal or otherwise, against any party who
may refuse to obey the
18
same.
“SO ORDERED.”

_______________

17 Exhibit “2”, Records, p. 17.

18 Exhibit “E”, Records, pp. 193-194.

407

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 407

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

The Director of Lands executed a Deed of Sale over 19

the
parcel of land in favor of respondent Alfonso 20
Abagat who
also paid the realty taxes over the property.
Alfonso Abagat made demands to Edgardo Gonzaga to
vacate the property in two Letters dated June 17, 1990 and
August 8, 1991, but Edgardo Gonzaga refused. On August
19, 1991, Edgardo Gonzaga and Gregorio executed a
Memorandum of Agreement in which they agreed to
rescind the deed of conditional sale and the deed of final
and absolute sale they had earlier executed, and that
Miguel Gregorio would refund the amount of P90,000.00 on
or before December 15, 1991, and that in the meantime,
Edgardo Gonzaga would remain21
in the property until his
receipt of the said amount.
However, even before Miguel Gregorio could refund the
P90,000.00 to petitioner Edgardo Gonzaga, Alfonso Abagat
filed a complaint against the petitioners for recovery of
possession with damages in the Regional Trial Court of
Makati.

Evidence for the Petitioners

Unknown to the petitioners, the respondents had filed an

application with the Bureau of Lands for a sales patent
over the land. On March 30, 1984 the Spouses Gregorio, as
vendors, and the petitioners as vendees, executed a deed of
conditional sale over the house for P100,000.00, payable on
installment basis.

The Decision of the Trial Court

On October 10, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment in

favor of the respondents and against the petitioners and
intervenors. The fallo of the decision reads:

_______________

19 Exhibit “7”, Id., at p. 195.

20 Exhibits “H” to “H-5”.
21 Exhibit “5”.

408

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Ordering defendants-spouses Gregorios and

Gonzagas and all persons claiming rights under
them to vacate the premises at Lot 11, Block 15
located at No. 2063 Bagong Sikat, Parañaque,
Metro Manila, and for defendants-spouses
Gregorios to demolish at their own expense, the
house constructed thereon;
2. Ordering defendants-Gregorios to pay plaintiffs the
amount of P45,000.00 representing unearned
rentals on subject premises from March, 1984 up to
October 1991, and P500.00 land rental every month
thereafter;
3. Ordering defendants-spouses Gonzagas and
Gregorios jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs the
amount of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
4. Ordering defendants-spouses Gregorios and
Gonzagas jointly
22
and severally to pay plaintiffs the
costs of suit.”

The intervenors did not appeal the decision. The

petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals,
contending that:

...
“e. Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs now have the right to
compel defendants to remove their house on the questioned land,
should not the third-party defendants spouses Gregorio be
mandated to REFUND the purchase price paid by defendants/3rd-
party plaintiffs plus damages arising out of this case to which
defendants were implicated by reason of spouses Gregorio’s
failure to comply with their 1984 and 1985 agreements with
defendants/3rd party plaintiffs?
In such a scenario, spouses Gregorio have the legal duty to
refund spouses Gonzaga the purchase price the latter paid to the
former in 1984 and to answer for all damages that spouses
Gonzaga may sustain by reason of any judgment in favor of
plaintiffs against defendants.
It will be noted that third-party defendants spouses Gregorio
have filed a voluntary Appearance and a Manifestation admitting

_______________

22 Records, pp. 365-366.

409

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 409

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

the truth and fairness of the Third-Party23

Complaint filed by
defendants spouses Gonzaga against them.”

The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court on Decem-

ber 19, 1997. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error afflicting it, the

appealed
24
Decision is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to
costs.”

On the plea of the petitioners that the trial court should

have ordered the intervenors to refund to them the
P90,000.00 the latter had received as payment for the
house, the appellate court ruled that a separate complaint
should have been filed against the Spouses Gregorio,
instead of appealing the decision of the trial court.
Dissatisfied, the Petitioners filed the instant petition,
raising the sole question of whether or not the RTC and the
CA erred in not ordering the intervenors to refund to them
the P90,000.00 they had paid for the house and which the
latter promised to do so under their Memorandum of
Agreement.
The petitioners aver that in the light of the admission
made by the intervenors in their pleadings in the trial
court, including their Answer to the third-party complaint
and their urgent motion for intervention, that they were
liable to the petitioners for any judgment for damages
adjudged by the trial court in favor of the respondents, the
trial court should have ordered the intervenors to refund to
them the aforesaid amount of P90,000.00. The petitioners
assert that while the trial court did not rule on their
motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the
Spouses Gregorio, the caption of the Order dated March 8,
1993, included the Spouses25
Gregorio as intervenors and
third-party defendants. The petitioners aver that the
interest of substantial justice and

_______________

23 Id., at p. 119.
24 Id., at p. 45.
25 Rollo, p. 120.

410

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

the avoidance of multiplicity of suits should likewise be

considered by the Court.
In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver
that the liability of the intervenors to the petitioners in the
Memorandum of Agreement is personal. Since they were
not privies to the Agreement, the respondents contend that
the claim for refund of the petitioners against the
intervenors must be presented in a separate action against
the latter. Moreover, the respondents insist that the
petitioners did not pray, in their third-party complaint, for
the refund by the Spouses Gregorio of the amount of
P90,000.00. Hence, the respondents assert, even if the trial
court had granted leave to the petitioners to file a third-
party complaint against the Spouses Gregorio and
admitted the said complaint, the petitioners would not
have been entitled to a refund of the said amount.
The petition has no merit.
We agree with the petitioners that a judgment should be
complete by itself. It should not leave26 open any judicial
question to be determined by others. The Court is to
dispose finally of the litigation so as to preclude further
litigation between the parties on the same subject matter
thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits between the parties
and their privies and successors-in-interests. However, the
Court has no authority to roam at will and grant relief to
the parties prescinding from their pleadings and prayers.
The rule is that a party is entitled only to such relief
consistent with and limited to that sought by the pleadings
or incidental thereto. A trial court would be acting beyond
its jurisdiction if 27it grants relief to a party beyond the scope
of the pleadings. Moreover, the right of a party to recover
depends, not on the prayer, but on the scope of the
pleadings, the issues made and the law. A judgment which
determines questions not within the court’s

_______________

26 Berrybill v. Berrybill, 23 So. 2d 889 (1945).

27 49 Corpus Juris Secundum, Judgment, p. 118.

411

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 411

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

28
jurisdiction, because not in issue, is, to that extent, void.
There is no principle better established than that what is 29
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440
29
not juridically presented cannot be juridically decided.
Also, where a party has prayed only for specific relief or
reliefs as to a specific30subject matter, usually no different
relief may be granted. A judgment31
which grants reliefs of
a character not sought is void.
Where a prayer for general relief is added to the demand
of specific relief, the court may grant such other
appropriate32 relief as may be consistent with the allegations
and proofs.
In this case, the petitioners failed to file any pleading
against the Spouses Gregorio for the enforcement of the
deed of conditional sale, the deed of final and absolute sale,
and the Memorandum of Agreement executed by them. The
petitioners filed their motion for leave to file a third-party
complaint against the intervenors, the Spouses Gregorio,
and appended thereto their third-party complaint for
indemnity for any judgment that may be rendered by the
court against them and in favor of the respondents.
However, the petitioners did not include in their prayer
that judgment be rendered against the third-party
defendants to refund the P90,000.00 paid by them to the
Spouses Gregorio. Worse, the court denied the petitioners’
motion. The petitioners failed to assail the trial court’s
order of denial in the appellate court. Even after the trial
court had granted leave to the Spouses Gregorio to
intervene as parties-defendants and the latter filed their
Answer-in-Intervention, the petitioners failed to file a
cross-claim against the intervenors for specific performance
for the refund of the P90,000.00 they had received from the
petitioners under their deed of conditional sale, the deed of
final and absolute sale and the memorandum of agreement
and pay filing

_______________

28 Petersen v. Dethlefs, 298 N.W. 155 (1941).

29 Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 83 (1926).
30 Corpus Juris Secundum, Judgments, p. 112.
31 Hurr v. Davis, 193 N.W. 943.
32 49 Corpus Juris Secundum, Judgments, p. 114.

412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

and docket fees therefor. Hence, the trial court had no

jurisdiction to render judgment in favor of the petitioners
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

ordering the intervenors to refund the P90,000.00 to them.

In fine, if the trial court had rendered judgment in favor of
the petitioners by ordering the enforcement of the deeds
executed by the parties and directing the intervenors to
refund the P90,000.00 paid by the petitioners for the house
on the subject property, the court a quo would have acted
beyond its authority.
We agree that the intervenors admitted their liability
for the payment of P90,000.00 in their Answer to the Third-
Party Complaint of the petitioners. However, the said
answer was of no legal consequence because the court
denied the motion of the petitioners for leave to file a third-
party complaint against the intervenors. Moreover, the
intervenors, it appears, were inveigled by the petitioners to
engage their lawyer, Atty. Laserna, Jr. as their counsel as
intervenors, which the trial court rejected.
The petitioners did not raise in their pleadings
33
the issue
of their entitlement to the said refund. The only issues
raised by the petitioners in their Pre-Trial Brief are the
following:

“1. Who owns the house constructed in 1973 by the

Sps. Gregorio using their own funds and at their
own expense at 2063 Bagong Sikat St., Baclaran,
Parañaque, Metro Manila?
2. Who owns the parcel of lot located at 2063 Bagong
Sikat St., Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila?
3. Who has the right of possession of the house and/or
lot mentioned above, or both?
4. May the plaintiff legally demand the defendants to
vacate the lot in question and demolish the subject
house at the latter’s expense?
5. Was there gross bad faith and value on the part of
the defendants in refusing to vacate the 34 lot in
question and to demolish the subject house?”

_______________

33 The trial court did not issue any Pre-Trial Order.

34 Id., at pp. 105-106.

413

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 18, 2004 413

Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

On the other hand, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners

are as follows:

“X. Reiteration of the Defendants’ Prayer:

“In consideration of the foregoing, defendants respectfully pray
for them:

1. Dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit.

2. Awarding in favor of the defendants moral damages for
the undue harassment and loss of reputation continuously
experienced by the defendants as well as the mental
anguish suffered by the defendants because of the acts of
the plaintiffs.
35
3. Order plaintiffs to pay costs of suit.”

The petitioners did not include in their Pre-Trial Brief a

prayer for the refund of the amount of P90,000.00 to be
made by the intervenors.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DENIED DUE COURSE. The assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs
against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ.,

concur.
Chico-Nazario, J., On Leave.

Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.

Note.—A party who fails to acquire complete relief from

a decision of a court has various remedies to correct—he
may move for a reconsideration or clarification of
judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary
appeal. (Avisado vs. Rumbaua, 354 SCRA 245 [2001])

——o0o——

_______________

35 Id., at pp. 109-110.

414

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a789960c2f7c12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18