G.R. No. 125302 - Ortega vs. Court of Appeals

Felipe L. Abel filed a complaint against Carmen Bascon Tibajia and Norberto Tibajia, Jr. for the recovery of P250,000.00, along with moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, leading to the attachment of the defendants' properties.
The defendants were declared in default for failing to file an answer, allowing the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte.
Felipe Abel died before presenting evidence, and his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs.
A judgment was rendered in favor of the heirs, ordering the defendants to pay the principal sum, moral damages, and attorney's fees.

Due to the defendants' unavailability, the decision was served by publication.
The heirs assigned their rights to Eden Tan, who filed a motion for execution of the judgment.
The attached properties were sold at public auction to Lorenza Ortega for P448,989.50, which satisfied the judgment debt.
The Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds.

The defendants filed a motion contesting the bill of costs prepared by Eden Tan, claiming it was inflated.
The trial court ordered the submission of a detailed bill of costs supported by receipts.
Deputy Sheriff Pangan reported his inability to provide receipts as they were with Eden Tan.
The defendants tendered a redemption price shortly before the expiration of the redemption period and later sought a refund for excess charges they deemed unauthorized.

The trial court found that several charges in Eden Tan's bill of costs were bloated and only allowed a reduced amount to be taxed against the defendants.
The court determined the total redemption price and ordered the Clerk of Court to deliver the appropriate amount to Lorenza Ortega while refunding the excess to the defendants.

Eden Tan and Lorenza Ortega appealed the trial court's order, questioning the validity of the redemption.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, stating that only parties to the case could appeal and that Eden Tan, as an assignee, lacked standing.
The court emphasized that the heirs of Felipe Abel were the proper parties, and Eden Tan's status did not confer the right to appeal.

Lorenza Ortega filed a petition for review, questioning her right to appeal as the auction vendee.
The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming that Ortega lacked locus standi.
Ortega's participation was limited to motions related to the execution process, and she did not formally intervene in the case.