Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23563)
Facts:
Cristina Sotto v. Hernani Mijares, G.R. No. L-23563, May 08, 1969, the Supreme Court (Makalintal, J., ponente; Reyes, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concurring; Capistrano, J., did not take part; Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., on leave).The plaintiff-appellee Cristina Sotto brought Civil Case No. 6796 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to foreclose a real estate mortgage given as security for an alleged P5,000 loan. In that foreclosure action she moved on November 13, 1962 for the defendants to deposit P5,106.00 — the sum the plaintiff asserted represented the balance due — with the clerk of court pending termination of the case. The defendants-appellants Hernani Mijares et al. filed an opposition on November 23, 1962 expressing willingness to deposit the amount only if the complaint were dismissed and they were absolved of further liabilities, expenses and costs.
The trial court issued an order on November 26, 1962 directing the defendants to deposit P5,106.00 with the clerk of court pending final termination of the case. On November 28, 1962 the plaintiff, now with new counsel, filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings with respect to the P5,106.00; the defendants moved for reconsideration, explaining they had overlooked alleging in their opposition that the P5,106.00 was secured by a real estate mortgage and conditioning their willingness to deposit on cancellation of the mortgage and return of the defendants’ transfer certificates of title.
On March 20, 1963 the CFI denied both the plaintiff’s motion for partial judgment and the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and reiterated its previous directive that the defendants deposit P5,106.00 within ten days. The defendants appealed that portion of the order requiring deposit to the Court of Appeals; the case was subsequently certified to the Supreme Court, the sole question presented being one of law. The Supreme C...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the interlocutory order directing the defendants to deposit P5,106.00 in court appealable, or should the proper remedy have been certiorari?
- Did the trial court have the authority to compel the defendants to deposit the admitted sum of P5,106.00 in court, despite the defendants’ condition that the mortgage secur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)