ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 140693. June 14, 2000]

SPS. GUALBERTO & CLEOTILDE CALLEJA vs. GLORIA LEE, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 140693 (Spouses Gualberto & Cleotilde Calleja vs. Gloria, et al.)

The present petition seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 28 April 1999, in CA-G.R. No. 24085, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the Late Emilio De Santos, Gloria Lee, et al. vs. Gualberto Calleja, et al."

The antecedents of this case are as follows:

On 21 November 1984, Herminio de Santos filed a "Petition for Letters of Administration" for the Intestate Estate of the deceased Emilio de Santos before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. In said petition, Herminio de Santos along with seven (7) other heirs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "De Santos Heirs") averred that the deceased left several parcel of land, three of which are located in Barihan, Malolos, Bulacan (hereinafter referred to as the "Barihan Lots"). During the pendency of the petition, Gloria Valenzuela Lee, the niece of Dolores Valenzuela Santos (the late wife of the deceased Emilio de Santos), filed a motion praying for the exclusion of her aunt's share in the conjugal property and for the rescission of the appointment of Herminio de Santos as administrator insofar as her aunt's share is concerned.

During the course of the intestate proceedings, Gloria Velenzuela Lee and other claimant heirs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Valenzuela Heirs") of the Estate of Dolores Valenzuela Santos discovered that the De Santos Heirs executed an "Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate of the Deceased Emilio de Santos with Sale." Pursuant to such extra-judicial partition with sale, Herminio de Santos sold the Barihan Lots to the spouses Gualberto and Cleotilde Calleja in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00). This sale resulted in the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title ("TCTs") on the Barihan Lots in the name of the deceased and the issuance of new TCTs in the name of the Calleja spouses. Accordingly, the Valenzuela Heirs filed a verified petition before the lower court for the declaration of nullity of the extra-judicial settlement, the sale of the land to the Calleja spouses, and the new TCTs issued in the name of the Calleja spouses. During the pendency of the lower court's resolution of the foregoing petition, the De Santos Heirs and the Valenzuela Heirs entered into a compromise agreement wherein the parties agreed, among others to give the Barihan Lots to the Valenzuela Heirs. In the same compromise agreement, Gloria Valenzuela Lee was authorized to prosecute any claim with regard to the Barihan Lots. In its Decision dated 23 September 1986, the lower court approved the compromise agreement.

Pursuant to the compromise agreement, Gloria Valenzuela Lee, on behalf of the Valenzuela Heirs, filed a motion before the lower court for the issuance of an order directing the Register of Deeds of Bulacan to cancel the new TCTs on the Barihan Lots in the Name of the Calleja spouses. The Calleja spouses filed an opposition to the motion and claimed that their title to the Barihan Lots can only be contested in aseparate action. In its Order dated 19 June 1989, the lower court denied the motion of the Valenzuela Heirs and stated that being an intestate court, it only has a limited jurisdiction and, as such, the issue with regard to the validity of the sale of the Barihan Lots and the consequent issuance of the new TCTs thereto should be threshed out in a separate civil action and not in the intestate proceedings. The Valenzuela Heirs filed a motion for reconsideration but it was, likewise, denied.

Dissatisfied therewith, the Valenzuela Heirs filed a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision, dated 28, 1999, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the order of the lower court and ruled that even in its capacity as an intestate court, it has the power to rule upon the validity of the sale of the Barihan Lots. In this regard, the CA declared that the extra-judicial settlement entered into by the De Santos Heirs and the sale of the Barihan Lots to the Calleja spouses are both null and void. The CA further ordered the cancellation of the new TCTs in the name of the Calleja spouses and the reinstatement of the original TCTs in the name of the deceased Herminio de Santos. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Orders dated June 19, 1989 and September 13, 1989 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 300039, 300041 in the name of Gualberto calleja and Cleotilde Calleja are declared null and void; the register of Deeds of Bulacan is hereby ordered to cancel said Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 300039, 300040 and 300041 and to reinstate Transfer of Certificate of Titles Nos. T-214009, T-243271 and T-243273, located at Barihan, Malolos, Bulacan, in the name of the original owner, Emilio de Santos.

Cost against oppositors Spouses Gualberto and Cleotilde Calleja.

SO ORDERED. 1 Rollo, pp. 48-49.

On 21 May 1999, a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals was delivered to the office address of petitioners' lawyer. After the lapse of the 15-day appeal period, the Court of Appeals recorded the case in its Book of Entries of Judgments as having become final and executory.

On 29 November 1999, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file their petition for review before this Court. Unaware of the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals in the present case, the Court, in its resolution dated 15 December 1999, granted petitioners thirty (30) days within which to file his petition for review. On 13 December 1999, after having received a copy of the aforesaid motion by registered mail, respondents filed an opposition to petitioners' motion for extension asserting therein that the said motion should be denied since the case has already become final and executory as evidenced by a copy of the Entry of Judgment attached to their opposition. On 3 January 2000, petitioners filed its petition for review. In our Resolution dated 24 January 2000, the Court noted respondents' opposition and withheld any action on the petition for review. Furthermore, the Court required petitioners to comment on the opposition filed by respondents.

On 28 February 2000, petitioners filed their comment in compliance with the above resolution. In their comment, petitioners admit that there has indeed been an entry of judgment in the Court of Appeals with regard to the instant case. Petitioners, likewise, admit that a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals was delivered to the office address of petitioners' counsel. Petitioners, while admitting the foregoing facts, claim that the Decision of the Court of Appeals is still not final and executory since they nor their lawyer received a copy of the Decision on 28 April 1999 and that they only received the same on 18 November 1999. Petitioners reason that although the decision was delivered to the office address of their counsel. Viola and Pascual Law Offices, the same was received by Abquina Law Office which also conducted its business in the same address. Furthermore, petitioners asseverates that their counsel could not have received the copy of the Decision since the Law Office of Viola and Pascual had already folded up due to the death of Atty. Margarito Viola on 17 April 1997, as evidenced by a copy of Atty. Viola's death certificate, and the migration of Atty. Pascual to the United States after the death of Atty. Viola. Petitioners asserts they only learned of the Decision on 12 November 1999 when they received a copy of the Motion for an Order to Surrender Oppositors' Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Titles filed by respondents with the trial courts. Upon learning of this development, petitioners went, on 18 November 1999, to the office address of Atty. Viola where they learned of the passing away of Atty. Viola and obtained a copy of the Decision of the Court of Appeals. In this regard, petitioners argue that since Abquina Law Office is not the successor-in-interest of Viola and Pascual Law Offices, it was not authorized to received a copy of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in Behalf of petitioners. On this score, petitioners claim that the questioned Decision has not yet become final and executory and, as such, their petition for review should be given due course.

After signifying their intention to file a reply to petitioners' comment and seeking two consecutive motions for extension of time to file the said pleading, both of which were granted by the Court, respondents filed the same on 2 May 2000. Respondents insist that the petition should be dismissed outright since the case has long become final and executory and, as such, there is nothing that can be done with the same. Furthermore, respondents claim that petitioners are guilty of forum shopping since, despite the verification and certification on this matter in their petition for review, petitioners failed to inform this Court of the incidents in the trial court where, after respondents filed a Motion for Execution and a Motion for an Order Directing Spouses Calleja to Surrender the Owner's Certificate of Titles, petitioners filed an opposition to the foregoing motions. This, respondents asserts, is a violation of Sec.5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and, as such, should merit the summary dismissal of the instant petition.

The petition is denied.

This Court is not the proper forum for petitioners to ventilate their claim that the decision of the Court of Appeals was not properly served upon them on 28 April 1999 and, as such, their receipt of the same on 18 November1999 should be the reckoning point in determining whether their petition was filed within the reglementary period. If petitioners intend to further pursue the instant case, they should have first filed the proper petition with the Court of Appeals in order that the entry of judgment of this case may be filed. This hurdle should first be overcome by petitioners before the instant case can be elevated to this Court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE