Case Digest (G.R. No. 77691)
Facts:
Paterno R. Canlas v. Hon. Court of Appeals, and Francisco Herrera, G.R. No. 77691. August 08, 1988. Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Paterno R. Canlas is a lawyer who represented private respondent Francisco Herrera in litigation arising from extrajudicial foreclosures by L & R Corporation over several Quezon City parcels. Herrera obtained loans from L & R (about P420,000) and executed mortgages; upon default L & R foreclosed and bought the lots at public auction. Herrera secured preliminary injunctive relief in an injunction case in the Court of First Instance, where Canlas acted as counsel.
After prolonged litigation, the parties entered into a court‑approved compromise (November 19, 1982) giving Herrera an extension to redeem the properties for P600,000 with 1% monthly interest and stipulating attorneys’ fees of P100,000 in favor of Canlas. Herrera lacked funds; Canlas moved for execution of the compromise as to his fees and the court granted execution, though collection is disputed.
Subsequently, a transaction between the parties occurred: an instrument titled “Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or to Redeem” was executed enabling Canlas to redeem and to register title in his name. Herrera contends the document was altered on registration — the original language transferring “rights of equity of redemption” was changed to convey “any and all my rights of the real properties” — and that Canlas effectively acquired ownership and later resold the parcels. Herrera annotated adverse claims on the titles, and Canlas sought cancellation of those annotations and a writ of possession; the court granted both. Herrera filed motions for temporary restraining order and to recall the writ of possession, and ultimately filed Civil Case No. 40066 (reconveyance and reformation), which the trial court dismissed; that dismissal became final.
On December 6, 1985 Herrera filed a petition for “Annulment of Judgment” in the Court of Appeals (AC‑G.R. SP No. 07860), challenging (1) the order granting execution for the P100,000 attorneys’ fees, (2) denial of his request for a restraining order against execution, and (3) denial of the motion to recall the writ of possession. Canlas moved to dismiss in the Court of Appeals; the CA denied the motion ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss AC‑G.R. SP No. 07860 on the ground that the petition is in reality a petition for certiorari filed out of time (procedural timeliness/route)?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in not dismissing the petition on the ground of res judicata or mootness (procedural preclusion and justiciability)?
- Was Herrera’s petition properly one for annulment of judgment (i.e., was there extrinsic fraud warranting annulment)?
- Was the Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption valid and/or did Canlas violate the ban on acquisition by lawyers of things in litigation (Article 1491), or was the transfer voidab...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)