G.R. No. 48004 - Doronila vs. De Arroyo

In civil case No. 9031 before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, titled “Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo vs. Mariano B. Arroyo,” a judgment was rendered against Mariano B. Arroyo, obligating him to pay alimony at the rate of P500 per month beginning February 1932 to Dolores Vasquez.
Due to Mariano B. Arroyo’s failure to comply with the alimony order, Dolores Vasquez obtained an order of execution.
On July 27, 1935, the provincial sheriff of Iloilo, acting under the order of execution, conducted a public auction of a parcel of land (covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6386) and sold it to Dolores Vasquez for P4,500.
The final certificate of sale in favor of Dolores Vasquez was executed on August 10, 1936.

Carlos Doronila, who had filed a third-party claim with the provincial sheriff upon the levy, contested the auction sale.
On September 23, 1935, he filed civil case No. 10269 before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, seeking to set aside the auction sale.

He claimed to be the sole owner of the land, alleging that it had been conveyed to him by Mariano B. Arroyo first through a sale by installment executed on June 10, 1933, and later by a definite sale on February 11, 1935.

The trial court, in its decision, declared the conveyances by Mariano B. Arroyo null and void on the ground that they were fraudulent transactions devised to defeat creditors, thus upholding the validity of the levy and subsequent auction sale.
This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on March 31, 1937.

On April 12, 1937, Carlos Doronila attempted to redeem the contested property by tendering a sum of P4,608 (covering the full auction price plus the corresponding interest) to the provincial sheriff.
The sheriff refused the redemption, contending that the legally prescribed period for redemption had expired.
Consequently, Carlos Doronila instituted civil case No. 10874 before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, seeking:

An annulment of the deed of absolute sale executed by the sheriff in favor of Dolores Vasquez.
A judicial order compelling both Dolores Vasquez and the sheriff to allow him to redeem the property.

The trial court dismissed his complaint, basing its decision primarily on the expiration of the redemption period.

The prior conveyance by Mariano B. Arroyo to Carlos Doronila, on which the latter based his claim of ownership, was found to be fraudulent, established as an attempt to thwart the enforcement of the alimony judgment.
Evidence indicated several irregularities, including:

The sale by installment and its delayed registration.
Subsequent transactions that further complicated the title, including an assignment of a mortgage and an amended foreclosure complaint.

Procedural lapses were noted in the foreclosure proceedings (civil case No. 10199) where necessary parties were not joined, as mandated by Section 255 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Carlos Doronila contended that the period during which civil case No. 10269 was pending (from September 23, 1935, to March 31, 1937) should not be counted towards the twelve-month statutory redemption period prescribed by Section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
He argued on equitable grounds that it would be unjust to bar his right to redeem, given that his original suit sought a declaration of absolute ownership rather than merely the right of redemption.
The court, however, found that the equitable considerations could not override the clear statutory mandate on the redemption period, especially in view of Doronila’s involvement in fraudulent transactions.

Whether Carlos Doronila had a right to redeem the property after the expiration of the statutory redemption period as fixed by Section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the period during which civil case No. 10269 was pending should be excluded from the statutory redemption period on equitable grounds.

Whether the sales and transfers made by Mariano B. Arroyo in favor of Carlos Doronila, including a sale by installment and a definite sale, were fraudulent as they were intended to defeat the enforcement of the alimony judgment.
The implications of such fraudulent transactions on the rights of the parties, particularly Dolores Vasquez, to receive alimony and enforce her legal remedies.

Whether the foreclosure proceedings (civil case No. 10199), in which not all interested parties were joined as required by Section 255 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could impact the status of the property and any claims thereon.