ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137675. March 7, 2001]

NOVERNIA P. NAGUIT vs. CA et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2001.

G.R. No. 137675(Novernia P. Naguit vs. Court of Appeals, Osler U. Padua and Norberto B. Magsajo.)

Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 February 2001 and a Motion To Order Deposit Of Rental Income dated 24 January 2001, both filed by private respondent Osler U. Padua.

Private respondent seeks a reconsideration of our decision, promulgated on 5 December 2000, wherein we declared that on the strength of section 17 of Rule 39 of the former Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner Novernia P. Naguit could file an independent action for the annulment of a public sale carried out pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Branch 133) in Criminal Case No. 90-2645 ordering Rolando Naguit to indemnify private respondent in the amount of P260,000.00. Petitioner's ground for instituting a separate action ¹ Filed by petitioner on 8 August 1995 with the RTC of Makati against private respondent Padua and respondent Sheriff Magsajo for the annulment of sale and for damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in order to enjoin the final conveyance of title over the condominium unit to private respondent. Docketed as Civil Case No. 95-1182.was that the property levied upon and subject of the sale did not belong to the judgment obligor in said criminal case, but was her exclusive property.

In his motion for reconsideration, private respondent claims that petitioner is not a stranger to the criminal case. This issue was already discussed in our decision wherein we held that, pursuant to our ruling in Sy v. Discaya, ² 181 SCRA 378 (1990). petitioner is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of execution was issued.

Secondly, private respondent claims that petitioner should be barred by laches from assailing the levy and sale of the property. Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier, it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. The defense of laches is an equitable one and does not concern itself with the character of the defendant's title, but only with whether or not by reason of plaintiff's long inaction or inexcusable neglect, he should be barred from asserting his claim at all, because to allow him to do so would be inequitable and unjust to defendant. ³ Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 18 (1999). In the present case, it has been established that petitioner filed the action for annulment of sale before the expiration of the period of redemption and prior to the issuance of the final deed of conveyance in favor of private respondent. Thus, laches cannot be invoked by private respondent to defeat petitioner's right to file an independent action.

Finally, private respondent asserts that the property in dispute is conjugal and that the debt incurred by Rolando Naguit redounded to the benefit of his family. These claims are matters which should be taken up by the RTC of Makati in the action for annulment abovementioned (Civil Case No. 95-1182).

Meanwhile, in his Motion To Order Deposit Of Rental Income, private respondent maintains that the period for redemption expired on 25 August 1995 and therefore, as the purchaser in the public auction, he is entitled to all the incomes derived from the subject property beginning from such date. Proceeding therefrom, private respondent asks the Court to order petitioner to deposit the rental income from the subject property with the Court. Furthermore, private respondent also asks the Court to order petitioner to submit an accounting of all incomes derived from the property beginning from 25 August 1995 until the present. This motion should be resolved in the separate action for annulment filed by petitioner.

WHEREFORE, private respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED, while his Motion To Order Deposit Of Rental Income is remanded to the RTC of Makati for resolution in Civil Case No. 95-1182.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE