Immaculata vs Navarro (Civil Law)

LAURO IMMACULATA, represented by his wife AMPARO VELASCO as Guardian Ad Litem
vs.
HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, (Judge CFI Rizal) and HEIRS OF JUANITO VICTORIA, namely: LOLITA, TOMAS, BENJAMIN, VIRGINIA, BRENDA AND ELVIE, all surnamed VICTORIA, and JUANITA NAVAL, surviving widow; and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL

---- To preserve the right to redeem, consignation is not required; but to actually redeem, there must of course be payment or consignation (deposit) itself.

G.R. No. L-42230 November 26, 1986

PARAS, J.:

FACTS: On March 24, 1975, petitioner Lauro Immaculata, represented by his wife Amparo Velasco as guardian ad litem filed in the CFI of Rizal a complaint, for annulment of judgment and deed of sale with reconveyance of real property, against private respondents herein and respondent sheriff.

The complaint alleged that on or about December, 1969 Juanito Victoria with the cooperation of defendant Juanita Naval, and others succeeded in causing plaintiff Lauro Immaculata, petitioner herein, to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Juanito Victoria, by unduly taking advantage of the mental illness and/or weakness of petitioner and thru deceit and fraudulent means, purportedly disposed of by way of absolute sale, a 5,000-square meter parcel of land covered by a TCT, for the sum of P 58k, which petitioner supposedly received, but in truth and in fact did not; that although it was made to appear that petitioner voluntarily and freely appeared before the Notary Public on January 13, 1970, petitioner, then already suffering from chronic mental illness, could not possibly appear before the said Notary Public; and that said Deed of Sale was not freely and voluntarily executed by petitioner, and the same was absolutely fictitious and simulated, and, consequently, null and void;

that based on said fictitious and simulated sale, an action for specific performance was filed by Juanito Victoria, during his lifetime, against petitioner herein before the respondent Court to compel petitioner to execute a document registerable with the Register of Deeds of Rizal in order that Juanito Victoria may be able to obtain title over the property; that no proper and valid service of summons was ever made upon the petitioner, and thus, notwithstanding, the latter was declared in default and judgment by default was rendered against him; that said judgment by default was null and void, having been rendered against a person who is/was admittedly insane and over whose person, the respondent court did not validly acquire jurisdiction; that the judgment by default was not properly served upon the petitioner and/or the supposed guardian ad litem, and this, notwithstanding, Juanito Victoria, thru counsel, succeeded in securing the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the judgment by default rendered by the respondent Court against the petitioner; that Juanito Victoria, alleging 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 complaint’s 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.

R E S O L U T I O N

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 required to 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.