Case Digest (G.R. No. 94457)
Facts:
Victoria Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, October 16, 1997, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Victoria Legarda owned a Quezon City lot allegedly leased to New Cathay House, Inc. (Cathay); after she refused to sign the written lease, Cathay sued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 94, for specific performance with preliminary injunction and damages (Civil Case No. Q-43811). Legarda’s counsel, Dean Antonio Coronel, obtained an extension to file an answer but failed to do so; the RTC declared Legarda in default and, on March 25, 1985, rendered judgment by default ordering her to execute the lease and to pay damages, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
A writ of execution issued; at sheriff’s auction Cathay’s manager, Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr., was the highest bidder (P376,500), and a Certificate of Sale (June 27, 1985) and a Final Deed of Sale (July 8, 1986) issued; Cabrera registered title as TCT No. 350892. Legarda did not redeem within one year. Cathay then sought enforcement, while Legarda’s counsel did not pursue timely relief and the judgment became final. Legarda filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-10487), which on November 29, 1989 dismissed the petition and held Legarda bound by her counsel’s negligence; that decision became final on December 21, 1989.
When Legarda learned of the adverse rulings she obtained new counsel and filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court; the Court’s First Division (Gancayco, J., concurring) on March 18, 1991 granted the petition, declared the trial and appellate decisions null and void, set aside the sheriff’s sale and final deed, and ordered New Cathay House, Inc. to reconvey the property to Legarda and the Register of Deeds to cancel the registration in Cathay’s name. Cathay moved for reconsideration, asserting reconveyance was impossible because the property had already been sold by Cabrera to innocent third parties: (1) Cabrera to Nancy Saw (March 21, 1990; TCT No. 31672), (2) Saw to Lily Tanlo Sy Chua (August 7, 1990; TCT No. 31673), and (3) Chua to Janet Chong Luminlun (April 3, 1992; TCT No. 99143). No lis pendens was annotated on those titles. Cabrera was impleaded only by resolution of August 12, 1991.
The En Banc considered Cathay’s motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 1991 First Division decision. On October 16, 1997 the Court (Romero, J.) granted the motion for reconsideration, vacated the March 18, 1991 decision, and entered a new judgment dismissing the petition and affirming the Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant respondent New Cathay House, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration and set aside the Court’s March 18, 1991 decision ordering reconveyance of the property?
- Was petitioner Legarda deprived of due process such that the judgments below are void because of her counsel’s alleged gross negligence?
- If the judgments below were void, is reconveyance an available remedy given the transfer of the property to innocent purchas...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)