Case Digest (G.R. No. 8106)
Facts:
Teodoro S. Benedicto, as Sheriff of the Province of Iloilo, plaintiff and appellee, v. Gregorio Yulo, as Attorney and Representative of Juan Tuason and Ruperto Montinola, defendant and appellant, G.R. No. 8106, November 26, 1913, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose after a sale of real property belonging to Ceferino Domingo Lim under judicial process. According to the record as presented by Gregorio Yulo (acting as attorney for Juan Tuason), Tuason purchased the property at a public sale following foreclosure (or, as Montinola later alleged, under execution upon a judgment), the sale was duly made and confirmed, and Tuason thereafter applied to the sheriff for a deed of conveyance. Before the sheriff executed the deed to Tuason, Ruperto Montinola appeared, claimed he had acquired from Lim the right to redeem the property (the mortgagor’s equity of redemption), tendered the redemption amount (sale price plus costs) and demanded that the sheriff execute the deed to him.
Facing two adverse claimants seeking the same ministerial act, the sheriff commenced this suit to determine to whom he should issue the conveyance. In the Court of First Instance of Iloilo the procedural posture was irregular: Yulo, as attorney for Tuason, filed an answer denying the complaint and asserting special defenses; Montinola, through counsel, demurred to the complaint (the demurrer was overruled and the complaint ordered amended); after an amended complaint was filed the demurrer and the same answer were again interposed, but the court entered final judgment on the merits without resolving the demurrer or trying the factual issues. The trial court found that Montinola had purchased the equity of redemption and thus stood in Lim’s shoes, and it ordered the sheriff to execute a conveyance to Montinola.
The case was brought to the S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the action properly brought and decided against Gregorio Yulo as representative, instead of against the real parties in interest, in violation of the rule that actions must be between real parties in interest?
- Did the trial court err in entering final judgment without an agreed statement of facts, evidence, or resolution of demurrer and answer?
- On the merits, was the sheriff required to execute a conveyance to Ruperto Montinola who claimed to have bought the mortgagor’s equity of redemption after a judicial sale, and does an equity of redemption survive a duly confirm...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)