GR 125302; (November, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125302 November 16, 1998
LORENZA ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CARMEN BASCON TIBAJIA and NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Felipe L. Abel filed a complaint against spouses Carmen Bascon Tibajia and Norberto Tibajia, Jr. to recover a sum of money. After Abel’s death, his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs. The defendants were declared in default, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs later assigned their rights to Eden Tan. A writ of execution was issued, and the defendants’ attached real properties were sold at public auction to Lorenza Ortega as the highest bidder. The Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was registered. The defendants (private respondents) filed a motion to lift the writs and offered to pay the judgment. They later deposited a redemption price with the Clerk of Court. They also contested the bill of costs, alleging it was padded. The trial court, after hearings, found certain publication expenses were inflated and adjusted the redemption price downward, ordering a refund to the defendants. Lorenza Ortega, the auction vendee, filed motions in the trial court opposing the defendants’ motions and the order for a refund. The trial court denied her motions. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her appeal for lack of locus standi, ruling she was not a party to the case and had not properly intervened.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner Lorenza Ortega’s appeal for lack of locus standi.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Lorenza Ortega was merely an auction vendee in an execution sale. She was not a party to the original case between the plaintiffs and the defendants. She did not file a motion for intervention in the main case to be recognized as an intervenor under the Rules of Court. Her filing of pleadings incidental to the execution process did not ipso jure confer upon her the legal standing of a party in interest. Procedural rules must be followed, and the Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s decision.