Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32442)
Facts:
The case involves Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. (petitioner-appellant) and Ricardo Relucio, alias Ricardo Relucio Ngo Thim (respondent-appellee). The events leading to the case began on September 4, 1962, when the petitioner filed a collection action against Relucio and Ong Ting in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 51483. The defendants failed to file an answer, resulting in their being declared in default on October 13, 1962. Subsequently, a judgment by default was rendered on March 6, 1963, ordering Relucio and Ong Ting to pay the petitioner a total of P12,300.00, inclusive of interest and attorney's fees.
On July 17, 1963, Relucio filed a motion to lift the order of default and set aside the judgment, which was denied by the court. Relucio appealed this denial, and the case was assigned G.R. No. L-22079. Meanwhile, on June 10, 1963, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the sheriff levying on a property own...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32442)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
On September 4, 1962, Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. (petitioner) filed Civil Case No. 51483 in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Ricardo Relucio (respondent) and Ong Ting for the collection of sums of money. Respondents failed to file an answer and were declared in default on October 13, 1962. A default judgment was rendered on March 6, 1963, ordering respondents to pay the petitioner amounts totaling P12,300.00, plus interest and attorney's fees.
Execution of Judgment:
On June 10, 1963, the court issued a writ of execution. The sheriff of Caloocan City levied on respondent Relucio's real property (TCT No. 34718) and sold it at public auction on August 10, 1963, with petitioner as the highest bidder. The certificate of sale was registered on August 15, 1963.
Respondent’s Motion to Lift Default:
On July 17, 1963, respondent Relucio filed a motion to lift the default order and set aside the judgment, which was denied on July 22, 1963. He appealed this denial to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-22079), but the appeal was perfected only on October 9, 1963—after the execution sale.
Cancellation of Title:
After respondent failed to redeem the property, the sheriff executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the petitioner on August 24, 1964. Petitioner then filed Civil Case No. C-115 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking the cancellation of respondent's title and issuance of a new one in its name. The court granted the petition on September 24, 1964, despite respondent’s opposition.
Court of Appeals Decision:
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled on October 28, 1969, that the writ of execution and all subsequent proceedings were premature and unlawful because they occurred during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court set aside the order for cancellation of title.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction to order the cancellation of respondent's title and issuance of a new one during the pendency of the appeal.
- Whether the writ of execution and all subsequent proceedings (levy, auction sale, and cancellation of title) were valid or premature.
- Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision had become academic after the Supreme Court affirmed the default judgment in G.R. No. L-22079.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that:
- The writ of execution and the proceedings arising from it (levy, auction sale, and cancellation of title) were valid because they occurred before the perfection of the appeal on October 9, 1963.
- The Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction to order the cancellation of title since the execution was not stayed by any injunction during the appeal.
- The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the proceedings were premature and unlawful.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)