Case Digest (G.R. No. 48209)
Facts:
The Government of the Philippines, petitioner; Macahio Abanico et al., claimants; Aurelia Altea, claimant and appellee, vs. Haw Pia and Valeriano Niala, claimants and appellants, G.R. No. 48209. July 27, 1943, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.In cadastral Case No. 63 before the Court of First Instance of Tayabas the trial court, by decision dated December 8, 1937, adjudicated lot No. 8610 to Haw Pia, accepting her claim that she bought it from Valeriano Niala under a pacto de retro (right of repurchase) and that her title had consolidated; a final decree and certificate of title issued in her favor. Within one year thereafter Aurelia Altea filed two coetaneous petitions: one to review the decree on the ground of fraud and another to compel Haw Pia to execute a deed of resale upon payment of P490, alleging that she had acquired Niala’s repurchase right at a sheriff’s sale (purchase at public auction on May 29, 1937 with final deed June 10, 1938) and that Haw Pia and Niala had connived to omit Altea’s interest from Haw Pia’s registration claim.
Haw Pia opposed, asserting she was the absolute owner because her title had consolidated after four years under the pacto de retro (relying on the first paragraph of Article 1508, Civil Code). The trial court entertained the revision petition, set aside the order of general default as to Altea, and authorized Altea to file her answer and proofs. Haw Pia appealed to the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. No. 5352). The Court of Appeals ruled that the redemption period under the pacto de retro was ten years (second paragraph of Art. 1508, Civil Code), sustained the trial court’s view that the registration decree was reviewable for fraud (failure to disclose the right of repurchase and Altea’s acquired interest), and affirmed the trial court’s order.
After remand, counsel for Haw Pia sought leave to file an amended answer alleging that on April 23, 1937 Haw Pia had paid Niala an additional P855, raising the repurchase price to P1,345; the trial court sustained Altea’s objection and excluded the amendment, holding Haw Pia estopped from contradicting the premise on which she obtained registration. Haw Pia then sought to reamend alleging that the sheriff’s sale through which Altea claimed had been illegal and void; this too was rejected as it should have been raised earlier and, the court said, could only validly be questioned by Niala. Thereafter Valeriano Niala, through Haw Pia’s counsel, for the first time attempted to appear and file an answer supporting Haw Pia’s belated claims; the court rejected it because the order of general default had not been lifted as to him and because the present proceeding was not proper for impugning the sheriff’s sale. After hearing Altea’s answer, the trial court on January 13, 1941 held that Altea had the right to repurchase the lot for P490 within ten years from August 2, 1932 (i.e., until August 2, 1942) and directed the register of deeds to annotate that incumbrance, thereby modifying the earlier decree. From that order Haw Pia and Valeriano ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- At the post-remand stage, may a claimant (Haw Pia) introduce new facts (the alleged P855 payment raising the redemption price) that she could and should have alleged in her original opposition and upon which she previously obtained registration?
- May Haw Pia, at that late stage, challenge the legality of the sheriff’s sale by which Altea claims to have acquired Niala’s rights?
- May Valeriano Niala, who had been in general default and did not earlier intervene, be permitted to appear belatedly to support Haw ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)