Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 16, 20 17 and November 20, 2017 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 51 in SPL. PROC. No. 2391 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City for further proceedings with dispatch.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS, COMPULSORY HEIRS,  FAILED TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON A PROBATE OF A WILL. THEY WERE DECLARED IN DEFAULT. SUPREME COURT SAID AN ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT DOES NOT APPLY IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS SINCE THESE ARE NOT CONTENTIOUS LITIGATIONS.

“However, Sec. 3, Rule 9 does not apply in probate proceedings. A careful reading of Sec. 3 reveals that an order of default avails only in litigious proceedings. Thus, it cannot be validly issued in a special proceeding such as the probate of a will. The Court already made this clarification in the early case of Riera v. Palmaroli34 as follows:

Now what is the meaning or “judgment rendered upon default,” as used in section 513? The reference is of course to the default mentioned in section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure. x x x A default, such as is there intended, can only arise in contentious litigation where a party who has been implcaded as a defendant and served with process fails to appear at the time required in the summons or to answer at the time provided by the rules of the court. The proceeding to probate a will is not a contentious litigation in any sense, because nobody is impleaded or served with process. It is a special proceeding, and although notice of the application is published, nobody is bound to appear and no order for judgment by default, is ever entered. If the application is not opposed, the court may allow the will on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only (sec. 631, Code Civ. Proc.), provided none or the reasons specified in section 634 of the Code or Civil Procedure for disallowing the will are found to exist. If any interested person opposes the probate, the court hears the testimony and allows or disallows the will accordingly. From such judgment any interested person may appeal to the Supreme Court within twenty clays. (Sec. 781, Code Civ. Proc.) Though the action taken by a Court of First Instance in thus allowing or disallowing a will is properly denominated a _judgment, it is not a judgment rendered upon default even though no person appears to oppose the probate. 35 (emphases supplied).

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

“ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2016 and Resolution dated May 26, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137086 are MODIFIED, as follows:

1) Petitioner Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. is ORDERED to immediately EXECUTE a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale covering Ground Retail Unit B, West Tower in favor of respondent Hermana Realty, Inc., PROVIDE an original copy thereof to respondent Hermana Realty, Inc., and CAUSE its registration pursuant to Section 17 of PD 957;

2) Petitioner Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. is DIRECTED to DELIVER the owner’s duplicate copy of the Condominium Certificate of Title to respondent Hermana Realty, Inc.; and

3) Respondent Hermana Realty, Inc. is ORDERED to directly settle the taxes and registration expenses with the government within the periods prescribed under the law and take charge of causing the issuance of a new Condominium Certificate of Title in its name.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

FIL-ESTATE AND HERMANA REALTY EXECUTED A CONTRACT TO SELL WHEREBY FIL-ESTATE SHALL SELL TO HERMANA REALTY A CONDO UNIT. IT IS STIPULATED THAT HERMANA REALTY WILL PAY THE DOC STAMP TAX, VAT AND TRANSFER TAX. UPON FULL PAYMENT HERMANA DEMANDED FIL-ESTATE TO CONVEY THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE CCT. FIL-ESTATE REFUSED UNLESS HERMANY REALTY PRODUCE PROOF THAT IT HAS PAID THE DOC STAMP TAX, VAT AND TRANSFER TAX. SUPREME COURT SAID THAT UPON FULL PAYMENT THE BUYER CAN DEMAND EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND ORIGINAL COPY OF OWNER’S TITLE.

The registration of the final deed of sale here is the obligation of FEPI under Section 17 (of PD 957). On the other hand, issuance of title under Section 25 should be construed to mean delivery by FEPI of the owner’s duplicate copy of the CCT, again for purposes of causing the registration of the property in the buyer’s name.

As it was, FEPI violated both provisions of law Not only did it fail to register the deed of absolute sale before the Register of Deeds, it also refused to deliver to HR.I the owner’s duplicate copy of the CCT.

Notably, FEPI’s obligations to register the final deed of sale (Section 17) and deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of the CCT (Section 25) are distinct from the obligation ofHRI, as buyer, to legally process the transfer of the CCT in its name as the now registered owner.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2020-0042: JESUS G. CRISOLOGO, NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO, JAMES IAN YEUNG, and MARLINA T. SHENG, VS. ALICIA HAO and GREGORIO HAO, (G.R. NO. 216151, DECEMBER 2, 2020, GAERLAN, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CRISOLOGO ET AL VS HAO ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 17, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 33, 581-10, and its Order dated January 9, 2015 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint dated November 18, 2010 filed by the respondents is hereby DISMISSED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS WON  COLLECTIONS CASE AGAINST A LANDOWNER. THE DECISION BECAME FINAL. PROPERTY WAS LEVIED. BIDDING WAS HELD. PETITIONERS WERE HIGHEST BIDDERS. CERTIFICATES OF SALE WERE ISSUED IN THEIR FAVOR. RESPONDENTS HAVE ALSO COLLECTION CLAIM AGAINST THE PROPERTY. THEY FILED A CASE TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF SALE BECAUSE PETITIONERS DID NOT PAY IN CASH BUT ONLY APPLIED THE JUDGMENT AMOUNTS DUE THEM IN JUDGMENT. AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATES OF SALE DID NOT MENTION THEIR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. RTC DECLARED THE CERTIFICATES OF SALE VOID. SUPREME COURT REVERSED RTC.

THE RULE STATES THAT JUDGMENT BIDDER NEED NOT PAY IN CASH EXCEPT IF THERE IS AN EXCESS IN CASE THERE IS NO  THIRD PARTY CLAIM. DOES THIS MEAN THAT IN CASE THERE IS A THIRD PARTY CLAIM SAID CREDITOR MUST PAY IN CASH?

NO BECAUSE THE RULE DOES NOT SAY SO. BASIC IS THE RULE IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT WHERE THE WORDS OF THELAW OR RULE ARE CLEAR, PLAIN, AND FREE FROM AMBIGUITY, IT MUST BE GIVEN ITS LITERALMEANING AND APPLIED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED INTERPRETATION.

THE RULE READS:

Section 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. – When the purchaser is the judgment obligee, and no third-party claim has been filed, he need not pay the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the amount of his judgment. If it does, he shall pay only the excess.

THE RULE ALSO SAYS THAT IF THERE IS A THIRD PARTY CLAIM THE SAME MUST BE STATED IN THE CERTICATE OF SALE. IN THIS CASE THE THIRD PARTY CLAIM IS NOT STATED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE. IS THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE VOID?

NO BECAUSE THERE IS AN INDEMNITY BOND POSTED. THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE IS TO PROTECT THE THIRD PARTY CLAIMANT. THE INDEMNITY BOND PROVIDES SUCH PROTECTION. BESIDES,  RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE CREATED TO PROMOTE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AS SUCH,THEIR STRICT AND RIGID APPLICATION MUST ALWAYS BE ESCHEWED WHEN IT WOULD SUBVE1IITS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE.46 THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE LAW IS TO SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OFEXECUTION SALES. AS THE FINAL STAGE IN LITIGATION, EXECUTION SHOULD NOT BEFRUSTRATED EXCEPT FOR SERIOUS REASONS DEMANDED BY JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THE RULE READS:

Section 26. Certificate of sale where property claimed by third person. – When a property sold by virtue of a writ of execution has been claimed by athird person, the certificate of sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant tosections 23, 24 and 25 of this Rule shall make express mention of the existence of such third-party claim.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.