Case Digest (G.R. No. 162788)
Facts:
Spouses Julita de la Cruz and Felipe de la Cruz v. Pedro Joaquin, G.R. No. 162788, July 28, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review under Rule 45 challenges the Court of Appeals’ August 26, 2003 Decision and its March 9, 2004 Resolution in CA‑GR CV No. 34702; the CA’s Decision was penned by Justice Josefina Guevara‑Salonga of the Twelfth Division.The underlying suit was filed by Pedro Joaquin in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, against Spouses Julita and Felipe de la Cruz for recovery of possession and ownership, cancellation of title, and damages. Joaquin alleged a P9,000 loan dated June 29, 1974, repayable June 29, 1979, and that the parties executed a Deed of Sale and a separate instrument titled “Kasunduan” which, according to Joaquin, showed the transaction to be an equitable mortgage or a sale with right of repurchase. Spouses De la Cruz maintained the Kasunduan merely memorialized an accommodation granting a right of repurchase which Joaquin failed to exercise.
On April 23, 1990, the RTC ruled for Joaquin, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Kasunduan to be a sale with right of repurchase, finding Joaquin had validly tendered payment on two occasions, and ordering reconveyance upon payment plus awards of actual, exemplary damages, litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals, in its August 26, 2003 Decision, affirmed the RTC in toto and later, by Resolution of March 9, 2004, denied reconsideration and ordered substitution by legal representatives in view of Joaquin’s death on December 24, 1988. A “Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff” had been filed in the CA on February 15, 2002 naming Joaquin’s heirs represented by his daughter.
Spouses De la Cruz filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, principally asserting (1) the trial court lost jurisdiction when Joaqui...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court lose jurisdiction over the case by reason of Pedro Joaquin’s death without formal substitution of his heirs?
- Were respondents guilty of forum shopping, or is the present suit barred by...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)