Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28646)
Facts:
Esteban Jose v. Carmen Blue, et al.; Catalina Cayetano, oppositor-appellant, G.R. No. L-28646, November 29, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zaldivar, J., writing for the Court. The appeal questions an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 56694 directing the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 84591 (also referenced in the record as 85491) in the name of oppositor-appellant Catalina Cayetano and to issue another title in the names of plaintiff-appellee Esteban Jose and Julita Luis, share and share alike, and ordering execution against Julita Luis’s share to satisfy attorney’s fees and costs.During his life Cipriano Jose married three times and acquired two adjacent lots in Sampaloc, Manila (TCT Nos. 41711 and 63565). After the deaths of his first and second wives and his own death on September 6, 1962, his widow Carmen Blue obtained duplicate owner’s certificates, had the lots adjudicated extrajudicially to herself and caused new titles (TCT Nos. 70427, 70428) to be issued to her subject to the Section 4, Rule 74 annotation protecting creditors, heirs and others for two years. Carmen Blue sold the lot covered by TCT No. 70427 to Julita Luis (TCT No. 71944) and later sold the other to spouses Pardo (TCT No. 73924).
Unaware of these transactions, Esteban Jose, the son of Cipriano by his first marriage, filed intestate proceedings and was declared sole heir. He then sued (Civil Case No. 56694) Carmen Blue, Julita Luis and the Pardos on March 25, 1964, to annul the adjudication and subsequent sales, and caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on the title then in Julita’s name. The Pardos answered; Julita defaulted.
On November 22, 1966 the parties (Esteban, Carmen Blue and the Pardos) submitted a compromise approved by the trial court on November 29, 1966; the compromise allocated the two lots and cash between Esteban and Carmen and contained an express reservation by Esteban of his right “to prosecute this case to judgment as against [Julita] and to obtain from her whatever relief may be proper.” On February 3, 1967 the trial court rendered judgment against defaulted Julita declaring the transfer of one-half of the lot (TCT No. 41711) to Julita null and void, ordering cancellation of TCT No. 71944 and issuance of a new title in the names of Julita and Esteban as co-owners in equal shares, and awarding P1,000 attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Esteban.
Before execution could be effected, Julita sold the lot to Benjamin Agraviador (TCT No. 75408) who mortgaged it; foreclosure resulted in issuance of TCT No. 84591 in the name of Catalina Cayetano. Esteban filed an omnibus motion (later amended) asking the trial court to cancel Catalina’s title and issue a new title in the names of Esteban and Julita, share and share alike, and to levy execution on Julita’s share to satisfy the P1,000 judgment. Catalina opposed, contending deprivation of property without due process because she was not an original party and arguing that Esteban’s compromise with Carmen Blue effectively recognized the sale to Julita and her successors.
The trial court, finding Catalina a successor in interest by title subs...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a transferee pendente lite who was not an original party be bound by a judgment against the predecessors in interest acquired after the commencement of the action?
- Was oppositor-appellant Catalina Cayetano deprived of due process by the cancellation of her title despite not being an original party?
- Did the compromise between Esteban and Carmen Blue bar Esteban from prosecuting his case and obtaining relief against Julita and subsequent transferees?
- What interest could Catalina Cayetano actually acquire by purchase at the foreclosure sale, and was the trial court's order directing cancellation of her title an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)