Case Summary (G.R. No. 186659-710)
Petition for Suspension of Proceedings
The Defendants filed a motion on April 2, 1903, seeking to suspend proceedings based on a criminal complaint regarding the alleged falsification of a document from April 30, 1898, that purportedly transferred the houses in question to the Obras Pias. The court denied this motion, clarifying that the initial presentation of the complaint by the criminal branch did not constitute an admission under Article 497 of the old Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the court determined that the proceedings should continue, as the appeal against the earlier order did not legally bar the execution of the deed of sale.
Foreclosure Action Background
The Obras Pias filed a complaint on May 20, 1885, to foreclose two mortgages amounting to $12,250 plus interest, which were established by Regidor in the late 19th century. This action has been enduring, and following a public auction on August 9, 1897, where no bidders appeared, the properties were adjudged to Obras Pias on December 14, 1897. A deed of sale executed on April 30, 1898, completed the transfer of ownership, and the Obras Pias took possession of the properties thereafter.
Subsequent Legal Developments
When Regidor interposed a complaint on April 2, 1900, alleging nullity of the preceding order that substituted the bank as the defendant, a judgment was rendered against both the bank and Obras Pias on May 28, 1900. This judgment declared null the actions that placed Regidor out of possession. Despite various attempts to appeal this judgment, both the bank and Obras Pias faced obstacles, leading to the case's submission before the Supreme Court for determination.
Power of Attorney and Representation
Regidor objected to the legality of the bank’s representation by Sr. Ortigas during proceedings. The court found this objection unfounded, affirming that Ortigas held a proper power of attorney and complied with the applicable procedural laws, including provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the objection was dismissed as lacking in merit.
Jurisdiction and Appeals
Regidor subsequently sought to invalidate the Supreme Court’s order from March 9, 1901, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the order had been repealed by Act No. 75 of the Commission. The court refuted both claims, establishing that it possessed jurisdiction over the recursos de queja and that the applicable laws did not negate their authority to consider such matters.
Conclusion of Judgment on Executory Actions
Ultimately, the court ruled that the proceedings arising from Regidor's complaint were initiated improperly, as significant actions had already been concluded in the case.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 186659-710)
Case Overview
- The case involves a dispute between La Junta Administradora de Obras Pias (plaintiff and appellant) and Ricardo Regidor along with The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (defendants and appellees).
- The primary issues concern the validity of certain documents related to mortgages, the rights of possession to property, and the actions taken by the court regarding the substitution of parties in the foreclosure proceedings.
Procedural Background
- A motion was filed by the appellees on April 2, 1903, requesting a suspension of proceedings based on an alleged admission of a falsification complaint by the former Supreme Court.
- This motion was denied, as the court clarified that the handling of the complaint was not an admission under the relevant legal provisions.
Factual Background
- The Obras Pias held two mortgages on properties owned by Regidor, dating back to 1879 and 1880, with a total due of $12,250 plus interest as of May 20, 1885.
- Following a prolonged legal battle, a public auction on August 9, 1897, resulted in no bidders, leading to the adjudication of the properties to Obras Pias on December 14, 1897.
Substitution of Parties
- The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation sought to be substituted as the defendant on December 31, 1894, providing documentation to support this request.
- The court recognized the bank as the rightful owner of