Case Summary (G.R. No. 191079)
Facts of the Case
Elinaida L. Alcantara borrowed P3,000,000.00 from the Spouses Maximo and Simplicia Aguilar on November 8, 2000, with a fixed interest of P720,000.00. To secure this loan, Alcantara executed a Venta con Pacto de Retro (Sale with Right to Repurchase) on a parcel of land registered under her name. The agreed term for repurchase was one year, with a grace period of six months. Alcantara failed to repurchase the property within the stipulated period and sought to extend her right to repurchase, which was granted informally. However, when her son Joel Cardenas attempted to redeem the property by offering to pay the loan, the Spouses Aguilar refused. This led Alcantara to file a complaint for reformation of the instrument and specific performance, seeking a declaration that the agreement constituted an equitable mortgage rather than a sale.
Procedural History
Upon Alcantara's death, Cardenas was substituted as the plaintiff and later filed an Amended Complaint. The original defendants, including the deceased spouses, had previously filed an answer insisting that the transaction was a sale. After a trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on February 27, 2009, declaring the contract to be an equitable mortgage and ordering the release of the mortgage upon receipt of the loan amount. The defendants sought execution of this decision, but Cardenas objected, citing the lack of proper substitution of parties following the death of the Spouses Aguilar.
Main Issues
The petition raised two primary legal issues:
- Whether a motion for execution could be filed by counsel when the judgment obligees had already died, without any proper substitution of parties or appointment of an executor or administrator.
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a motion for execution under the same circumstances.
Court's Ruling
The court emphasized the importance of procedural adherence regarding substitution upon the death of parties. It ruled that despite the procedural deficiencies surrounding the death of Simplicia P. Aguilar, the existing involvement of Melba A. Clavo de Comer, the daughter of the deceased, as a co-defendant rendered the proceedings valid under the princ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191079)
Background of the Case
- This case revolves around a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The petitioner, Joel Cardenas, is the heir of the late Elinaida L. Alcantara.
- The respondents are the heirs of the late spouses Simplicia P. Aguilar and Maximo V. Aguilar, along with Atty. Norman R. Bueno.
- The petition challenges the Orders dated October 13, 2009, and January 18, 2010, from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 198, which directed the execution of its earlier decision dated February 27, 2009.
Facts of the Case
- On November 8, 2000, Elinaida L. Alcantara secured a loan of ₱3,000,000.00 from the Spouses Aguilar, with an interest of ₱720,000.00.
- As security for this loan, Alcantara executed a contract labeled "Venta con Pacto de Retro" (Sale With Right to Repurchase) over a parcel of land registered under her name.
- The loan was to be repaid within one year, with a six-month grace period.
- Alcantara failed to repurchase the property, prompting her to seek an extension, which was granted by Melba A. Clavo de Comer, the daughter of the Spouses Aguilar.
- In December 2002, Joel A. Cardenas attempted to redeem the property but was denied by the Spouses Aguilar.
- This led to the initiation of Civil Case No. LP-02-0300 by Alcantara, seeking reformation of the instrument a