Case Digest (G.R. No. 202223)
Facts:
Joey R. Pena v. Jesus Delos Santos and the Heirs of Rosita Delos Santos Flores, G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016, the Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The underlying action began in Civil Case No. 3683 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, which in a Decision dated April 29, 1996 awarded a two‑thirds portion (9,915 sq. m.) of four adjoining lots in Boracay to Jesus Delos Santos and Rosita Delos Santos Flores, and one‑third to Fred Elizalde. The losing parties (Vicente Delos Santos, et al., and Spouses Fred and Joan Elizalde) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but their appeals were eventually withdrawn or dismissed; the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied as time‑barred.
The plaintiffs sought relief from the Supreme Court via petitions for review on certiorari (G.R. Nos. 141810 and 141812), but the Court denied the petitions in a Decision dated February 2, 2007 and denied reconsideration in an April 23, 2007 Resolution; judgment was entered. On remand, during execution proceedings in the RTC a Motion for Substitution with a Motion for a Writ of Execution and Demolition was filed by Joey R. Pena (March 14, 2008), who claimed to have acquired the adjudged two‑thirds share through a chain of conveyances originating with an attorney, Atty. Romeo Robiso.
Pena produced a Deed of Transfer/Conveyance and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 4, 2005, a Confirmation of Sale and Transfer dated December 5, 2006 (from Jesus and Rosita to Atty. Robiso), and a subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale from Atty. Robiso to Pena dated December 15, 2006; tax declarations were later registered in Pena’s name. Records also showed an Attorney’s Agreement dated July 11, 1998 under which Atty. Robiso agreed to serve as counsel for Jesus and Rosita in Civil Case No. 3683 in consideration of contingent professional fees consisting of 2,000 sq. m. of whatever lands the courts might award them.
The RTC (Acting Judge Elmo F. Del Rosario) in an Order dated June 11, 2008 partially granted Pena’s motion: Pena was to be joined with the original first set of intervenors (Jesus and Rosita) under Section 19, Rule 3, and a writ of execution was ordered. The writ issued on July 10, 2008; reconsideration was denied September 8, 2008.
Jesus and the heirs of Rosita brought a special civil action for certiorari before the CA (CA‑G.R. CEB SP No. 03886). The CA, in a Decision dated February 20, 2012, reversed the RTC, holding that the conveyances to Atty. Robiso were prohibited and therefore null under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code because at the time of those transactions the case was still pending on appeal before this Court; it annulled the RTC orders and directed execution in favor of Jesus and the heirs of Rosita. The CA denied Pena’s motion for reconsideration in a May 24, 2012 Resolution.
Pena filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which denied the petition in a Minute Resolution dated September 9, 2013 for lack of reversible error. P...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Joey R. Pena have legal standing to be substituted or joined as an intervenor and to move for issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 3683?
- Are the deeds of conveyance executed by Jesus Delos Santos and Rosita Delos Santos Flores in favor of their counsel, Atty. Romeo Robiso, void or inexistent under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code and Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics because they were made while the property remained the object of pending litigation?
- If the conveyances were made pursuant to a contingent fee agreement, does that circumstance validate the transfer despite the prohibition in Article 1491(5)?
- Must a separate action for declaration of nullity be filed to attack the conveyances, and can princ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)