G.R. No. 104234 - Air France vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 104234)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background and Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner Air France filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against respondents Multinational Travel Corporation of the Philippines and spouses Fiorello and Vicky Panopio before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27.
On August 31, 1987, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Air France ordering the respondents to pay P2,518,698.66 plus legal interest from September 22, 1986, until fully paid and P50,000 as attorney’s fees.

Motion for Alias Writ of Execution and Fraudulent Sale Allegation

On December 29, 1989, Air France moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution due to unsatisfied judgment and sought to declare as fraudulent the sale of a parcel of land with an existing house covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 353935 to respondent Iolani Dionisio.
The property was registered under Multinational Food and Catering Corporation (Multinational Food), a corporation 91% owned by the Panopio spouses; other minority stockholders included Aldo Glen Panopio (3%), Jaime Dionisio (3%), and Marie Rose Ricasa (3%).
Despite being registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Multinational Food was non-operational and had not held meetings due to adverse conditions, as stated in a sworn SEC statement by its president Iolani Dionisio dated July 28, 1986.
Despite being non-operational, Multinational Food acquired the property from Ayala Investment and Development Corporation on February 1, 1985. The Panopio spouses then sold the property to Iolani Dionisio on April 11, 1985. The sale was only registered 1 year and 9 months later, during petitioner’s pursuit of a writ of attachment.

Court Actions and Opposition

The RTC set the motion for hearing on January 4, 1990, and subsequently issued an alias writ of execution on January 8, 1990.
The Panopio spouses opposed the motion, arguing:

(a) the court had no jurisdiction as Iolani Dionisio was not a party in the case; (b) Dionisio was not served summons, thus declaring the sale fraudulent would deprive her of property without due process; (c) the proper remedy was an independent civil action involving all indispensable parties.

On January 19, 1990, the RTC required Iolani Dionisio and Multinational Food to answer the allegations, but neither filed an answer.
On November 19, 1990, the RTC declared the sale to Dionisio as fraudulent against creditors. A motion for reconsideration by respondents was denied on February 15, 1991.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Petition for Review

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the RTC.
On February 24, 1992, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC’s orders and enjoined Air France from proceeding against the said property.
Air France then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling and setting aside the orders of the trial court that declared the sale of the subject property to Iolani Dionisio as fraudulent and issued an alias writ of execution.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 104234) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 104234) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 104234)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 104234)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model