Lorenza Ortega vs. Court of Appeals

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 125302, November 16, 1998

Remedial Law, Civil Procedure

FACTS:

The deputy sheriff auctioned the attached real properties of the defendant spouses Tibajia and awarded it to the highest bidder Lorenza Ortega in the amount of P448,989.50, credited to fully pay the judgment debt of spouses Tibajia to the Heirs of Felipe L. Abel.

As the twelve-month redemption period was about to expire, the defendants filed a motion to lift or set aside the writs of attachment and execution after paying through Aurora Tibajia Vito the redemption price plus other charges required by law. On the other hand, petitioner Ortega filed an "Urgent Ex Parte Motion for an Order of New Title and Issuance of Owner's Certificate of Title,", followed by a "Supplementary Motion for Issuance of New Titles". She also participated in evidentiary hearings regarding the issue of padded costs in computing the redemption price.

The trial court ordered petitioner Ortega to accept the payment of redemption price, and to refund to defendant spouses Tibajia the excess deposit. It also ordered issuance of the certificate of redemption in favor of the defendants.

Eden Tan (assignee of the Heirs of Felipe L. Abel) and petitioner Ortega (purchaser at the execution sale) appealed the order. The Court of Appeals dismissed Ortega’s petition for lack of locus standi, citing that only parties can appeal from a final judgment or order of a court pursuant to Sec. 1 Rule 41 and Sec. 1, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.

According to the Court of Appeals, the Brief filed by Eden Tan is styled: 'Felipe L. Abel substituted by Eden Tan, plaintiff-appellant.’ This is misleading, it said, because Felipe L. Abel was never substituted as plaintiff except by his heirs upon his death. If an order of substitution is needed before the heirs of a deceased party can become parties in a case, more so in the case of a mere assignee of the interest of a party.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Ortega has the standing to appeal as purchaser in the execution sale in an order of redemption in favor of the judgment debtors?

HELD:

No, the Supreme Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Admittedly, no formal motion for intervention was filed by petitioner, her participation being merely confined to filing an "Urgent Ex Parte Motion for an Order of New Title and Issuance of Owner's Certificate of Title,", followed by a "Supplementary Motion for Issuance of New Titles" of 12 July 1989, as well as in the evidentiary hearings regarding the padded costs in the redemption price.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, “a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof,” may file a motion for intervention with leave of court with notice upon all the parties to the action.

Such motion may be allowed or disallowed by the court after considering if the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and if the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

There was no such motion for intervention filed. As such, she was thereby never recognized as an intervenor. The filing of pleadings incidental to the execution process did not, ipso jure, give her the legal standing of a party in interest to the main case.

Petitioner insists that it would be the "quintessence of injustice to deny her the right to appeal from trial court’s order." “Not even a deeply held persuasion in the righteousness of a cause can justify playing loose with the rules,” the Court said.

"Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed."

The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

(Copyright 2008 - This original digest of a Supreme Court case may be copied, distributed or modified in any medium provided you acknowledge barops-philjuris.blogspot.com.)