Case Summary (G.R. No. 72306)
Applicable Law
The decision is based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as it was rendered after 1990. Key provisions discussed include Article 1491 of the Civil Code regarding the prohibition against a lawyer acquiring property from a client under certain circumstances.
Decision Summary
On October 5, 1988, the Supreme Court rendered a decision granting a Certiorari that annulled the July 25, 1985 Order of the Regional Trial Court which had granted a Writ of Possession and ordered the demolition of petitioners' houses. The Court's decision ordered the return of six disputed parcels of land to the petitioners unless they had been conveyed to innocent third parties. The Court also addressed the prayer for disbarment against Amonoy due to alleged legal malpractice, instructing him to respond within fifteen days.
Respondent's Arguments
In a Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 25, 1988, Respondent Amonoy presented several arguments. He contended that the transaction in question constituted a mortgage, thus Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code was inapplicable. He argued that, as a judgment creditor, the foreclosure sale did not violate the prohibitions outlined in the law. Amonoy also claimed that the petition was barred by res judicata, asserting that the issues had already been resolved in a previous case.
Court's Analysis
The Court found Amonoy's submissions unconvincing. It clarified that while the Project of Partition was approved on January 12, 1965, the estate remained in litigation until it was declared closed on August 6, 1969, indicating that a fiduciary relationship existed at the time the mortgage was executed. This protection intended by Article 1491(5) was not circumvented merely by labeling the transaction a mortgage.
Invalidity of the Mortgage
The Court further elucidated that the mortgage was executed in infringement of Article 1491(5), which prohibits lawyers from obtaining property from clients under such conditions. Amonoy's position of being a judgment creditor did not grant him immunity from the obligations imposed by this provision, thus solidifying the mortgage's invalidity.
Res Judicata and Jurisdiction
Amonoy's arguments regarding res judicata were
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 72306)
Case Background
- The case involves a dispute between the petitioners, members of the Fornilda family, and the respondents, which include the Regional Trial Court, a deputy sheriff, and Atty. Sergio Amonoy.
- The primary issue at hand is the validity of a mortgage executed in favor of Amonoy concerning properties that were allegedly still in litigation at the time of the execution.
Proceedings and Decisions
- On October 5, 1988, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision granting a petition for certiorari.
- Key points from the dispositive portion of the Decision include:
- The Order of the respondent Trial Court dated July 25, 1985, which granted a Writ of Possession, was set aside.
- Orders dated April 25, 1986, and May 16, 1986, which authorized the sheriff to demolish the houses of Angela and Leocadia Fornilda were also set aside.
- A Temporary Restraining Order previously issued was made permanent, and the disputed parcels of land were ordered to be returned to the petitioners unless conveyed to third parties.
- Amonoy was required to respond to the petitioners' plea for his disbarment due to alleged malpractice.
Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration
- On October 25, 1988, Amonoy