Case Digest (G.R. No. 171827)
Facts:
Teresita Monzon v. Sps. James & Maria Rosa Nieves Relova and Sps. Bienvenido & Eufracia Perez, G.R. No. 171827, September 17, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. On 18 October 2000 the spouses James and Maria Rosa Nieves Relova and the spouses Bienvenido and Eufracia Perez filed a Petition for Injunction (Civil Case No. TG‑2069) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Tagaytay City, naming as respondents Atty. Ana Liza Luna, Clerk of Court of Branch 18, and Teresita Monzon. They alleged that Monzon executed promissory notes secured by portions of a larger parcel (Psu‑232001, Tax Declaration No. 98‑008‑1793): a P600,000 note (28 Dec 1998) secured by Lot No. 2A (300 sq.m.) and later an alleged deed of absolute sale (31 Dec 1998) to the spouses Perez; and a P200,000 note (29 Mar 1999) secured by Lot No. 2B (200 sq.m.) with a Deed of Conditional Sale dated 27 Dec 1999 in favor of the spouses Relova.They further alleged that on 23 October 1999 Coastal Lending Corporation extrajudicially foreclosed the entire 9,967 sq.m. property (Psu‑232001) and that Addio Properties, Inc. (the eventual winning bidder) paid P5,001,127.00, leaving a residue of P1,602,393.65 in the custody of Atty. Luna. Relying on Section 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, respondents sought (1) judgment declaring Monzon liable to them (P1,215,000.00 to the Perezes and P385,000.00 to the Relovas), (2) delivery by Atty. Luna of the residue to respondents, and (3) injunctive relief restraining Atty. Luna from delivering any amount to Monzon.
In her Answer Monzon denied liability and asserted she had performed by dacion en pago as shown by the deeds of sale; she also argued respondents must pursue proper civil actions and could not compel the Clerk to deliver funds except through appropriate remedies (e.g., writs under Rule 57 or garnishment under Rule 39).
On 5 December 2001 the RTC — citing Monzon’s and her counsel’s absences despite notice — granted an oral motion allowing respondents to present evidence ex parte before the clerk of court. On 1 April 2002 the RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondents ordering Atty. Ana Liza M. Luna to deliver the P1,602,393.65 (plus any interest) then in her possession. The RTC’s order explicitly invoked the effects of default due to petitioner’s continuous absences.
Monzon filed a Notice of Appeal on 25 April 2002. Addio Properties, Inc. moved to intervene on 14 June 2002; intervention was granted on 12 July 2002. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 27 September 2005 (Resolution denying reconsideration dated 7 March 2006), dismissed Monzon’s appeal and affirmed the RTC, holding that Monzon had shown tepid interest and h...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Monzon denied due process when the RTC allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte and applied the effects of default without formally declaring her in default?
- Are respondents entitled to the residue of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Section 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court?
- If Rule 68 is inapplicable, should the Petition for Injunction be treated as a complaint for collection of a sum of money and what are the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)