Professional Documents
Culture Documents
that the herein petitioner failed to comply with the alleged writ of execution, prayed
before the respondent Court that the respondent Sheriff be directed to execute the
necessary deed of conveyance in favor of Juanito Victoria and thus consequently,
without the knowledge and consent of petitioner, a new TCT was issued in favor of
Victoria; that, in the alternative, petitioner prays that he be allowed to repurchase
the property within five (5) years from the time judgment is rendered by the
respondent court upholding the validity of the proceedings and the sale since the
land in question was originally covered by a Free Patent title; and finally, petitioner
prays for actual and moral damages as well as exemplary damages, attorney's
fees, expenses of litigation and costs of suit.
Private respondents moved for the complaints dismissal. Respondent Court
dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. Petitioner filed an MR on the
ground that res judicata is not applicable when the main cause of action is to annul
the very judgment. However, the respondent court denied the MR.
ISSUE:
Whether the present case is already barred by prior judgment
HELD:
(Remedial Law. Decision was already final and executory. Civil Case for annulment
of judgment already barred by prior judgment in the civil case for specific
performance. Immaculata lost.)
Immaculata filed an MR with SC.
RESOLUTION
G.R. No. L-42230 April 15, 1988
Petitioner's MR GRANTED.
.... the question of the right of legal redemption has remained unresolved. Be it
noted that in he civil case filed on March 24, 1975 before the defunct CFI of Rizal,
petitioner presented an alternative cause of action or prayer just in case the validity
of the sale would be sustained to allow petitioner to legally redeem the property.
We hereby grant said alternative cause of action or prayer. While the sale was
originally executed sometime in December, 1969, it was only on February 3, 1974
when, as prayed for by private respondent, and as ordered by the court a quo, a
"deed of conveyance" was formally executed. Since offer to redeem was made on
March 24, 1975, this was clearly within the five-year period of legal redemption
allowed by the Public Land Act.
The allegation that the offer to redeem was not sincere, because there was no
consignation of the amount in Court is devoid of merit. The right to redeem is a
RIGHT, not an obligation, therefore, there is no consignation requiredto preserve
the right to redeem.
WHEREFORE, the case is remanded to the court a quo for it to accept payment or
consignation by the herein petitioner of whatever he received from respondent at
the time the transaction was made.