Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4445)
Background and Contractual Arrangements
On November 8, 1951, Crisologo and Capiao mortgaged their property, a 2,364-square-meter house and lot, to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC), now known as the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), securing a loan of PHP 25,000. Due to their failure to repay the loan, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was sold at a public auction, with the DBP as the highest bidder at PHP 25,515.94. A Certificate of Sale was issued by the Provincial Sheriff of Isabela, confirming the sale.
Deed of Assignment and Redemption Issues
A week prior to the expiration of the redemption period, the appellants sought assistance from the appellee, Dural, to exercise their right to redeem the property. Subsequently, on July 2, 1956, they executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights of Redemption in favor of Dural, which included a Supplementary Agreement where the appellants sold their rights of redemption for PHP 3,000. Dural then obtained a Deed of Conditional Sale from the DBP on August 15, 1956, and took possession of the property while collecting rents.
Legal Dispute and Initial Court Proceedings
The appellants claimed there was a verbal understanding allowing them to redeem the property at any time. When Dural refused their request for redemption, the appellants filed a complaint for Reconveyance and Damages in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Isabela (Civil Case No. B-II-416). Dural filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 28, 1958, asserting that the plaintiffs' cause of action was barred by prior judgment and failed to state a cause of action. The lower court deferred action on this motion until after trial.
Hearing Delays and Dismissal of Complaint
The case experienced multiple postponements due to various motions filed by both parties, with a hearing finally scheduled for June 28, 1961. On that date, Eufrasia Capiao appeared, but Atty. Mauro Verzosa, the plaintiffs' counsel, failed to attend, leading to the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on July 12, 1961, for lack of representation. The court cited the inability of the plaintiffs to provide further evidence as grounds for the dismissal, despite a prior witness testimony.
Motion for Reconsideration and Court Decision
In response to the dismissal, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the appellants’ counsel, citing illness as the reason for his absence. The appellee opposed the motion, arguing that the failure to attend the hearing was a disregard for procedural norms. The trial court, however, denied the reconsideration, resulting in the appellants appealing the decision.
Review of Legal Standards and Outcome
The central issue before the appellate court was whether the lower court erred in dismissing the case based solely on the counsel’s absence. The ap
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-4445)
Case Citation
- G.R. No. L-19885
- July 31, 1965
- 122 Phil. 184
Parties Involved
- Plaintiffs and Appellants: Pedro Crisologo and Eufrasia Capiao
- Defendant and Appellee: Alfredo L. Dural
Factual Background
- On November 8, 1951, the appellants mortgaged a house and lot in Cauayan, Isabela, to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now the Development Bank of the Philippines) to secure a loan of P25,000.00.
- Following non-payment of the debt, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was sold at public auction with the DBP as the highest bidder for P25,515.94.
- A "Certificate of Sale" was issued by the Provincial Sheriff of Isabela, later confirmed by the Court.
- A week before the one-year redemption period expired, the appellants sought the assistance of appellee Dural to redeem the property.
- On July 2, 1956, the appellants executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights of Redemption and a Supplementary Agreement, selling their rights of redemption to Dural for P3,000.00.
- Dural subsequently purchased the property from DBP and executed a "Deed of Conditional Sale" on August 15, 1956, taking possession and collecting monthly rents.
Legal Proceedings
- The appellants claimed a verbal understanding allowed them to redeem the property anytime they had funds. When Dural refused, the appellants filed a complaint for Reconveyance and Damages.
- On October 28, 1958, Dural filed a Motion to