Case Digest (G.R. No. 36786)
Facts:
Pedro Lim v. Perfecto Jabalde, G.R. No. L-36786, April 17, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Pedro Lim filed on August 29, 1968 a complaint for specific performance in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to compel defendant-appellee Perfecto Jabalde to execute a deed of reconveyance (repurchase) covering seven parcels in Labangon, Cebu City. The controversy arose from a prior pacto de retro (sale with right to repurchase) between Lorenzo (Laurence) Abella and Jabalde: Abella’s right to repurchase had been levied upon and sold at public auction to satisfy a writ of execution issued in a different case (CA-G.R. No. 36941-R), and Lim purchased the right at that sale and later sought to exercise the repurchase right after Abella failed to redeem.
At pre-trial the parties executed a stipulation of facts setting out the levy, notice and conduct of the public auction (March 21, 1967), Lim’s purchase and payment, the sheriff’s certificate and definite deed of sale, Lim’s tender of the repurchase price and Jabalde’s refusal to accept it on grounds that he had granted Abella an extension. Relying on that stipulation the CFI rendered judgment for Lim on January 21, 1969, ordering Jabalde to execute the deed of repurchase and deliver possession.
Jabalde filed repeated motions for reconsideration (the trial court treated several filings as pro forma or successive motions) which were initially denied. A writ of execution issued and Lim sought ancillary relief to effect conveyance; Jabalde then raised new allegations—fraud and irregularity in the levy and sale, that only one lot was actually levied, that the writ had expired when the levy occurred, and lack of notice to redeem—and sought reopening of the case and nullification of the execution sale. On September 23, 1970, the Court of First Instance granted the motion for reconsideration, set aside its January 21, 1969 decision, and dismissed Lim’s specific performance case, ordering the return of titles to the registered owner. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Because the appeal raised only questions of law, the Court of Appeals ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction to reopen and set aside its own judgment that had become final and executory on the ground of alleged irregularities in the execution sale?
- Were the alleged execution irregularities admissible to contradict the parties’ pre-trial stipulation of facts?
- Did the procedural defects in the execution (e.g., enforcement under an expired writ, levy of only one parcel) render the levy and sale void and thus just...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)