G.R. No. L-27099 August 31, 1976
Felisa Rejuso and Amerigo Rejuso, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Ireneo Estipona and Eriberto A. Unson, Provincial Sheriff of Davao, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Ireneo Estipona filed Civil Case No. 4435 against Amerigo Rejuso, seeking annulment of a mortgage and collection of a debt. The court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on a house and lot where Rejuso resided. A default judgment was rendered against Amerigo, annulling the mortgage and ordering him to pay Estipona. The judgment became final, the property was levied and sold on execution to Estipona, and a writ of possession was issued. The Provincial Sheriff attempted to eject the Rejuso family.
Subsequently, Amerigo Rejuso, joined by his wife Felisa, instituted a separate action, Civil Case No. 5102, in the same court. They sought to annul the attachment, execution sale, and writ of possession, claiming the property was conjugal and thus not subject to the proceedings in the prior case, to which Felisa was not a party. Estipona moved to dismiss, arguing the court in Case No. 5102 had no jurisdiction to annul processes issued by another branch of the same court in Case No. 4435, noting Amerigo had already raised and lost the same issues in that prior case.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court in Civil Case No. 5102 correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction to annul the processes issued in Civil Case No. 4435.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of custodia legis and the proper forum for challenging court processes. Upon the levy by attachment in Civil Case No. 4435, the property fell under the custody of the law (custodia legis) for the purposes of that specific case. Consequently, any relief against the attachment and the subsequent execution and writ of possession could only be sought within that very same case, not through a separate and independent action.
The Court emphasized that the appellants had, in fact, already raised the validity of these processes in Civil Case No. 4435 via a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Their failure to appeal that denial rendered the orders final and binding, constituting res judicata as to Amerigo Rejuso. Even issues of jurisdiction, once raised and resolved in a final order, become res judicata or the law of the case. For Felisa Rejuso, who was a new party, her proper remedy, if not barred, was likewise to intervene or seek relief within the framework of the original case (No. 4435), not to initiate a new suit. Initiating a separate action for a matter integrally connected to a pending or concluded proceeding is superfluous and violates the principle that the court handling the main case retains exclusive jurisdiction over its incidents to ensure consistency and procedural order.