Case Digest (G.R. No. 132768)
Facts:
Jaime B. Biana v. George Gimenez, G.R. No. 132768, September 09, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jaime B. Biana (assignee of Santos B. Mendones) seeks review under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 9 July 1997 and its Resolution of 30 January 1998 which affirmed a Regional Trial Court (RTC) Naga City judgment in favor of respondent George Gimenez. The underlying controversy arose from an execution sale to satisfy a labor award obtained by Mendones against Gimenez Park Subdivision and George Gimenez in Term Case No. R05-D-008-78 before the Naga City DOLE District Office.
After a DOLE-ordered award and sheriff's computation, Deputy Sheriff Renato Madera levied four parcels registered under various Gimenez family members and conducted a public auction on 6 December 1978. Mendones was sole bidder and a Provisional Certificate of Sale issued on 7 December 1978. Gimenez claims he learned of the sale belatedly and thereafter paid publication costs and, to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period, presented four checks to Provincial Sheriff Manuel Garchitorena totaling P5,615.89; Garchitorena issued a receipt dated 19 July 1979 acknowledging full payment.
Deputy Sheriff Madera, however, later itemized balances including a P3,510.00 publication fee and executed a Definite Deed of Sale in favor of Mendones dated 8 December 1979. Gimenez then filed a special civil action for mandamus with damages in RTC Naga (Civil Case No. 860) to compel Garchitorena and/or Madera to execute a Deed of Redemption, alternatively praying that any definite deed of sale be declared null and void. Mendones intervened and later assigned his rights over the property to petitioner Biana for P1,000,000.00.
The RTC (decision dated 20 January 1999 in the records) ruled for Gimenez: it set aside the Definite Deed of Sale, ordered the Provincial Sheriff to execute a Deed of Redemption to Gimenez, enjoined registration of the Definite Deed, and awarded moral damages (P150,000) and attorney’s fees (P20,000) against intervenor Biana. The Provincial Sheriff and Biana appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 40208), which affirmed the RTC in a decision dated 9 July 1997 and denied reconsideration on 30 January 1998. Petitioner brought the present Rule 45 petition raisin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in affirming the RTC's grant of mandamus compelling the Provincial Sheriff to execute a Deed of Redemption (i.e., can the sheriff be legally compelled to execute the deed)?
- Did respondent Gimenez validly effect redemption by tendering postdated checks such that he was entitled to a Deed of Redemption?
- Was mandamus an improper remedy here because a Definite Deed of Sale had already been executed and an independent action for annulment should have been required?
- Were the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees against intervenor/petitioner proper despite petitioner’s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)