ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 112354 August 4, 1997 - LUVIMINO P. CASUELA v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115903 August 4, 1997 - ROBERTO CORDENILLO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106194 August 7, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117188 August 7, 1997 - LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121275 August 7, 1997 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122391 August 7, 1997 - FELIPE L. LAODENIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1303 August 11, 1997 - GLADDY S. BERNABE v. SALVADOR A. MEMORACION

  • G.R. No. 95089 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOMEDES FABRO

  • G.R. No. 97898 August 11, 1997 - FLORANTE F. MANACOP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99355 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO S. SALAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108234 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL RAGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109617 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111824 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA D. BAGUS

  • G.R. No. 120988 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSEMARIE N. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 121210 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL SAGUCIO

  • G.R. No. 121983 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANILLO BAXINELA

  • G.R. No. 123240 August 11, 1997 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107307 August 11, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110129 August 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDELCIANO AMACA

  • G.R. No. 110397 August 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO A. BINAMIRA

  • G.R. Nos. 116307-10 August 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO BACALTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127255 August 14, 1997 - JOKER P. ARROYO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1219 August 15, 1997 - COURT OF APPEALS v. MARCELO ESCALANTE

  • G.R. No. 121466 August 15, 1997 - PMI COLLEGES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 August 15, 1997 - ORTIGAS & CO. LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111066-67 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ORDOÑA

  • G.R. No. 112180 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MILDRED N. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. 115844 August 15, 1997 - CESAR G. VIOLA v. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117398 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES DABBAY

  • G.R. No. 120064 August 15, 1997 - FERDINAND PALOMARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121377 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH GELERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123290 August 15, 1997 - AURORA DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1234 August 18, 1997 - CRISTETA ORFILA v. RONA S. QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. 95523 August 18, 1997 - REYNALDO R. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119252 August 18, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124520 August 18, 1997 - NILO CHA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1350 August 18, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 95449 August 18, 1997 - PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98107 August 18, 1997 - BENJAMIN C. JUCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101832 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE O. TABALESMA

  • G.R. Nos. 113245-47 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DISIPULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115527 August 18, 1997 - ROSSELINI L. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117682 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO SALARZA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 118815 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA MELGAR-MERCADER

  • G.R. No. 119288 August 18, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119368 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO ERARDO

  • G.R. No. 119696 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAZUL GUIAMIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120256 August 18, 1997 - HERMITO CABCABAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123276 August 18, 1997 - MARIO TIU, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108611 August 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ASTO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-9-1237-RTC August 21, 1997 - LOSS OF COURT EXHIBITS AT RTC, BR. 136, MAKATI CITY

  • Adm. Matter No. 96-11-402-RTC August 21, 1997 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • Adm. Matter No. 97-2-12-MTC August 21, 1997 - ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO PRISONER NICANOR DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997 - KAREN E. SALVACION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96176 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA ISLA

  • G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997 - ALFREDO TANO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101829 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ZAMORA

  • G.R. No. 102018 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY GABAYRON

  • G.R. No. 103959 August 21, 1997 - REGALADO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108183-85 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONE PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112513 August 21, 1997 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113032 August 21, 1997 - WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC., ET AL. v. RICARDO T. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116294 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CHAVEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116602-03 August 21, 1997 - CARMELITA SARAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120691 August 21, 1997 - BIONIC HEAVY EQUIPMENTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123053 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. CARIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123492 August 21, 1997 - DANILO A. YAP v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126749 August 21, 1997 - ERIBERTO M. SUSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127896 August 21, 1997 - ADRIANO A. ARELLANO, JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109578 August 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO FABRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97642 August 29, 1997 - AVON INSURANCE PLC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123581 August 29, 1997 - RODRIGO B. BANGAYAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115581 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VACITA LATURA JONES

  • G.R. Nos. 116744-47 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO PANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119332 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACK V. SORREL

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 106194   August 7, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 106194. August 7, 1997.]

    SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the HEIRS OF NORBERTO J. QUISUMBING, Respondents.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration to which private respondents, heirs of Norberto J. Quisumbing, have filed an opposition. Petitioner has in turn filed a reply. Petitioner maintains that, as purchaser pendente lite of the land in litigation in Civil Case No. 10513 of the Makati Regional Trial Court, entitled "Norberto J. Quisumbing v. Philippine National Bank," petitioner has a right to intervene under Rule 12, 2.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    First. Petitioner points out that Sen. Vicente J. Francisco’s book on the Rules of Court (Vol. 1, page 719), which the Court cited in its decision, in turn cites Moore’s Federal Practice (Vol. 2, page 2307) which actually supports petitioner’s right to intervene. Petitioner states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    9. Prof. Moore, in his above-cited treatise, cites among others a case decided by the Supreme Court of California for the proposition that intervention of a purchaser pendente lite is recognized by the U.S. courts. (Ibid., Chapter 24 03, page 19, note 49; See, e.g., Dutcher v. Haines City Estate, 26 F 2d 669 [CCA Fla, 1928]; State ex rel. Thelen v. District Court for Toole County, 17 P. 2d 57, 93 Mont. 149 [S.C. Mont., 1932]; Bily v. Board of Property Assessment Appeals & Review, 44 A. 2d 250, 353 Pa. 49 [S.C. Penn., 1945]; Miracle House Corp. v. Haige Et. Al., 96 So. 2d 417 [S.C. Fla., 1957]).

    The Court cited Sen. Francisco’s work on the Rules of Court only for the proposition, not disputed by petitioner, that the purpose of Rule 12, 2 on intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party to protect his interest and the court to settle in the process all conflicting claims. Since petitioner is not a stranger in the action between Quisumbing and the PNB, petitioner in fact having stepped into the shoes of PNB in a manner of speaking, it follows that it cannot claim any further right to intervene in the action.

    Nor do we find the cases said to be cited in Moore’s Federal Practice supportive of petitioner’s right to intervene in this case. The first three cases (Dutcher v. Haines City Estate, 26 F. ed 669 (CCA Fla., 1928); State ex rel. Thelen v. District Court, 17 P.2d 57, 93 Mont. 149 (S.C. Mont., 1932) and Bily v. Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, 44 A.2d 250, 353 Pa. 49 (S.C. Penn. 1945)) involve purchasers pendente lite in execution or sheriff’s sales not in voluntary transactions. The difference is important. In voluntary sales or transactions, the vendor can be expected to defend his title because of his warranty to the vendee. No such obligation is owed by the owner whose land is sold at execution sale. In fact the buyer at such sales takes the property subject to the superior right of other parties. Thus, in Dutcher v. Haines City Estate, supra, in the action brought by Dutcher against the Haines City Estate to claim a lien on certain lands, it was held that a bank which subsequently obtained a judgment against the Haines City Estate for a sum of money and bought the lands being claimed by Dutcher, was entitled to intervene. It was held that "the title of the bank is superior to any lien asserted by appellants [Dutchers and company]. . . . It is immaterial that the title was acquired by the purchaser pendente lite as it is valid and cannot be affected by the pending litigation."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In State ex rel. Thelen v. District Court, supra, Ke-Sun Oil Co. brought a suit to quiet title against Sunburst Oil & Refining, Oil Well Supply and Ferdig Oil Co. Oil Well Supply, which had a lien on a property belonging to Ferdig Oil, foreclosed the lien and the property was sold to J.N. Thelen. It was held that J.N. Thelen should have been allowed by the lower court to intervene in order "to have his rights adjudicated." (17 P.2d at 59)

    And in Bily v. Board of Property Assessment Appeals, supra, it was held that in an appeal brought by property owners to protest an assessment, a party who foreclosed a mortgage on one of the properties and purchased the property at sheriff’s sale has a right to intervene. It was held that the right of intervention should be accorded to any one having title to property "which is the subject of litigation, provided that his rights will be substantially affected by the direct legal operation and effect of the decision, and provided also that it is reasonably necessary for him to safeguard an interest of his own which no other party on record is interested in protecting." (44 A.2d at 251)

    As the purchaser in those cases did not acquire the property from their owners but adverse to them, he could expect no party in the pending suit to safeguard his interest. Hence the necessity of allowing his intervention. In contrast, in the case at bar, petitioner himself considers the defenses raised by PNB, its predecessor in interest, to be "formidable" and all that it desires in seeking to intervene is "to fortify even more such defenses" (Reply to Opposition. p. 4). Petitioner is thus unlike the heirs in Dizon v. Romero, 26 SCRA 452 (1968) or the purchaser pendente lite at a sheriff’s sale in Bily v. Board of Property Assessment who had to be allowed to intervene because it was "reasonably necessary for him to safeguard an interest of his own which no other party on record is interested in protecting." (44 A.2d at 251) It is simply petitioner’s perfectionism or meticulousness that makes it want to intervene "to further improve the defenses of the original party (here, PNB)." But otherwise there is no reasonable necessity for its intervention.

    On the other hand the last case cited in Moore’s Federal Practice, Miracle House Corp. v. Haige, supra, while involving a vendee who sought to intervene in a case in which said vendee had an interest by virtue of a contract of sale made in its favor by one of the vendors, does not involve a purchaser pendente lite so as to be considered on all fours with the case at bar. He was a purchaser but not pendente lite. Hence the ruling in that case cannot be invoked by petitioner.

    Second. Petitioner contends that unless its right to intervene is upheld, a stranger to the action would have a better right contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Petitioner is not really denied protection. It is represented in the action by its predecessor in interest whose defenses petitioner itself considers to be "formidable." As private respondents point out, it is not really the case that petitioner is denied a hearing. It is not. As already stated, since petitioner is a transferee pendente lite with notice of the pending litigation between Quisumbing and PNB, petitioner stands exactly in the shoes of defendant PNB and is bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against PNB. Under Rule 3, 20, the action may be continued against PNB, the original defendant. In the alternative — although it was not essential that the transferee be substituted and the latter insist on such substitution — the trial court could have directed that petitioner be either substituted as party defendant or joined with defendant PNB.

    Third. Petitioner points out:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    20. On a separate matter, this Honorable Court stated in its decision that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    [T]he appellate court therefore properly refused to pass upon petitioner’s attempt to inquire into the consideration paid for the assignment of the right of redemption to the late Norberto J. Quisumbing, as well as petitioner’s claim that the transfer of interest to Quisumbing was made in violation of Art. 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, prohibiting attorneys from acquiring property or interest which is the object of the litigation in which they take part as such. This matter was never alleged by PNB in its answer to Quisumbing’s complaint.

    Petitioner most respectfully wishes to point out that the foregoing statement as to PNB’s supposed failure to raise the defense that the "transfer of interest to Quisumbing was made in violation of Art. 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, is not correct.

    Indeed, PNB raised this defense. Attached hereto as Annex "A" is PNB’s answer with counterclaim in Civil Case No. 10513 wherein PNB expressly raised the nullity under Art. 1491(5) of the supposed assignment to Atty. Quisumbing (Annex "A" at page 3, par. [e], among its various defenses. Hence, it is most respectfully asked that manifestation this be NOTED to prevent any party from unreasonably capitalizing on the erroneous statement of fact.

    The Court regrets the error. The underscored portion should not have been made. However, correction of the error does not call for the modification of the decision.

    ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero and Puno, JJ., concur.

    Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.

    G.R. No. 106194   August 7, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED