Facts:

• Lorenza Ortega is the petitioner; the respondents are the Honorable Court of Appeals, Carmen Bascon Tibajia, and Norberto Tibajia, Jr.
• Felipe L. Abel filed a complaint on November 25, 1983, against the Tibajia spouses to recover P250,000.00, along with claims for moral and actual damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
• A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, leading to the attachment of the defendants' properties.
• The defendants did not file an answer, resulting in their default on April 2, 1984, allowing the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte.
• Felipe Abel died on April 25, 1984; his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs on July 30, 1984.
• On January 24, 1985, the trial court ruled in favor of the heirs, ordering the defendants to pay P250,000.00, plus damages and fees.
• Due to the defendants' absence, the decision was served by publication in "Metropolitan Newsweek" on June 22, 29, and July 6, 1985.
• The heirs assigned their rights to Eden Tan on March 22, 1985; Tan filed a motion for execution, leading to a public auction on December 17, 1985.
• Lorenza Ortega was the highest bidder, purchasing the properties for P448,989.50, with the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale registered on January 6, 1986.
• The defendants contested the bill of costs prepared by Tan, claiming it was inflated; the trial court ordered a detailed bill of costs.
• The trial court found many claimed expenses bloated and ordered a refund to the defendants.
• The defendants redeemed the properties on December 22, 1986, depositing P457,415.65 with the Clerk of Court.
• On January 8, 1993, the trial court approved costs and determined the redemption price, leading to appeals by Tan and Ortega to the Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of locus standi, prompting Ortega to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that Lorenza Ortega lacked the legal standing to appeal the trial court...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court determined that Lorenza Ortega did not have the right to appeal because she had not formally intervened in the case.
• The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, noting tha...continue reading