G.R. No. 120176 - Santana-Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and their roles

Petitioner Ma. Valentina Santana-Cruz acted as administratrix of the intestate estate of the late Francisco D. Santana.
Respondents were the private respondents: Patrocinia Juanson-Cuizon, Felipe Riple, Elisa Marilao, Jose Poblete, Felix Poblete, Francisco Tolentino, Florentino Tolentino, Hospicio Tolentino, Virginia Tolentino, Maximina Tolentino, Pacita Marilao, Maria Marilao, Reynaldo Marilao, Francisco Marilao, Jr., and Crisanta Marilao, who were described as heirs of the late Valeriana Marilao.
Petitioner and Ma. Paz S. Concepcion were named defendants in the complaint for revival/execution of judgment before the Regional Trial Court.
Respondents were represented, at different times, by Atty. Patrocinia Juanson-Cuizon, Atty. Julian S. Yap, and Atty. Raul A. Mora.

The underlying judgment sought to be revived/executed

The judgment sought to be revived/executed was a Decision dated September 30, 1964 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch X, Pasig, Metro Manila, in Civil Case No. 6482, entitled “Felipe Riple, et al. vs. Francisco Santana, et al.”
The dispositive portion ordered reconveyance in favor of the plaintiffs, as heirs of Valeriana Marilao, of Lots Nos. 2, 4, 6, 11 and 12 of plan Psd-1536-LRC, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 65611.
The reconveyance was conditioned upon plaintiffs’ payment of P6,233.40.
The defendants were also ordered to execute the necessary deed of reconveyance within five (5) days from receipt of the payment.
The judgment further ordered payment of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs.

Affirmance of the underlying judgment

On December 5, 1979, the Court of Appeals affirmed the September 30, 1964 decision in toto, in CA-G.R. No. 48321-R.
The Court’s affirmation became final and executory on December 23, 1979.

Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 93-2636)

On March 23, 1993, Atty. Patrocinia Juanson-Cuizon, as attorney-in-fact representing respondents (heirs of Valeriana Marilao), filed before the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 74, Antipolo, Rizal, a Complaint for Revival/Execution of Judgment After Lapse of Five Years (docketed as Civil Case No. 93-2636).
On May 7, 1993, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion praying for dismissal on these grounds:

failure to state a cause of action;
the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations; and
the complaint should be expunged for having been filed by a person not authorized to practice law.

On August 19, 1993, the Regional Trial Court denied the omnibus motion.

It ordered that an alias writ of execution be issued to enforce the decision, affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

On September 1, 1993, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued seeking to implement the August 19, 1993 ruling.
On September 6, 1993, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Quash Alias Writ of Execution; it was denied by an order dated October 21, 1993.
On October 21, 1993, the Regional Trial Court issued a further order granting a motion for modification of the August 19, 1993 order:

it ordered the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila, to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 65611 and resultant titles;
it ordered issuance of corresponding new transfer certificates of title in the name of petitioner.

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 32631)

On November 19, 1993, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order against the August 19, 1993 and October 21, 1993 orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
On October 12, 1994, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the three questioned orders.

It declared the alias writ of execution dated September 1, 1993 void.
It dismissed the complaint for revival/execution of judgment on the ground of prescription.

On November 2, 1994, Atty. Julian S. Yap entered appearance for respondents and filed a Motion for Reconsideration stating that some respondents had died and that the heirs had revoked the authority of attorney-in-fact Patrocinia J. Cuizon to represent them.
On November 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals received another motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Raul A. Mora for respondents.
On November 25, 1994, petitioner filed an Opposition asserting that she received two motions for reconsideration from different counsel and that she had to treat Atty. Raul A. Mora as counsel of record because she did not receive notice of proper substitution of counsel.
On December 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration, stating it merely reiterated issues and arguments already extensively discussed and passed upon.
On December 16, 1994, the Court of Appeals received:

a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court filed by Atty. Raul A. Mora; and
a Manifestation and Motion filed by Atty. Julian S. Yap.

On December 22, 1994, the Court of Appeals “noted without action” the supplemental motion and manifestation because the motion for reconsideration had already been denied on December 15, 1994.

Petitions for review before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 118341 and 118360) and subsequent withdrawal

On or about January 5, 1995, respondents, through Atty. Julian S. Yap, filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, docketed as G.R. No. 118341.
Respondents filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court on February 6, 1995, questioning the Court of Appeals decision dated October 12, 1994 and its resolution dated December 15, 1994.
On March 1, 1995, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review, ruling that it failed to show a reversible error.
On or about April 8, 1995, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Supreme Court denied.
The March 1, 1995 resolution became final and executory on June 23, 1995.
On or about January 4, 1995, respondents, through Atty. Raul A. Mora, filed another Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition, docketed as G.R. No. 118360.
On January 25, 1995, the Supreme Court granted an extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period with no further extension.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 22, 1995 while G.R. Nos. 118341 and 118360 were pending before the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals promulgated the questioned resolutions:

February 9, 1995; and
April 21, 1995.

On February 27, 1995, respondents, through Atty. Raul A. Mora, filed with the Supreme Court a Motion to Withdraw Present Action in G.R. No. 118360.

The motion stated that the motion for extension and docket fees were based on a mistaken impression that the Court of Appeals resolution dated December 15, 1994 had denied their motion for reconsideration.
It asserted that the Court of Appeals clarified in its February 9, 1995 resolution that the December 15, 1994 resolution denied only the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Julian S. Yap, and that the motion for reconsideration filed through Atty. Raul A. Mora was granted.

On April 3, 1995, the Supreme Court granted the motion to withdraw in G.R. No. 118360.
The resolution granting withdrawal became final and executory on April 17, 1995.

The Court of Appeals’ challenged resolutions (February 9, 1995 and ...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176)
Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176) Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120176)
Advanced