Case Digest (G.R. No. 47805)
Facts:
Concepcion Pinon v. Consuelo Zafra et al., G.R. No. 47805, November 19, 1941, the Supreme Court, Moran, J., writing for the Court.On December 22, 1932, plaintiff Concepcion Pinon filed an ordinary civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 43432) against Julian Santamina, Crispina Arroyo and Gonzalo Cawil to recover a loan of P1,000. The loan was allegedly secured by a mortgage on several parcels of land executed by Gonzalo Cawil as attorney-in-fact for the spouses Julian Santamina and Crispina Arroyo. After the defendants defaulted, judgment was rendered for Pinon. A writ of execution issued, and five parcels covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 2283, 2427, 2429, 2474 and 2479 were levied upon and sold at public auction to Pinon as the highest bidder.
No redemption having been made within the statutory period, the provincial sheriff of Laguna executed an absolute deed of sale in favor of Pinon. When Pinon sought to register the deed with the Register of Deeds, registration was refused because she failed to surrender the certificates of title, which remained in defendants' possession. Pinon then petitioned the Court of First Instance of Laguna to compel delivery of the certificates to the register of deeds; that petition was denied.
Pinon thereafter instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to recover possession of the lands. The trial court rendered judgment in her favor. The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, appellants challenged the validity of the original Manila judgment, arguing tha...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the judgment in Civil Case No. 43432 of the Court of First Instance of Manila void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons of the defendants?
- Can the defendants' contention that the attorney-in-fact lacked authority (or that his power was revoked) be used to invalidate the prior judgment and defeat execution and regist...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)