GR 23119; (September, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23119 September 30, 1970
UNION SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. and R. F. NAVARRO & CO., petitioners, vs. METROPOLITAN THEATER COMPANY, respondent.
FACTS
Metropolitan Theater Company (respondent) filed a collection case against Union Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. and R. F. Navarro and Co. (petitioners) in the Municipal Court of Manila. A writ of attachment was issued, and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga levied upon two parcels of land owned by R. F. Navarro and Company. Judgment was rendered in favor of Metropolitan based on a confession of judgment submitted by the defendants. A writ of execution was issued, and the attached properties were sold at public auction, with Metropolitan as the highest bidder. After the redemption period expired, a final certificate of sale was issued to Metropolitan. It was discovered that during the attachment period, the titles to the levied properties (TCT Nos. 11407-R and 11408-R) were cancelled and new ones (TCT Nos. 12902 and 12903) were issued in the name of Union Surety based on a deed of sale dated August 20, 1954. An annotation in favor of the Republic of the Philippines (notice of levy) was later made on these new titles. Metropolitan filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga for the cancellation of TCT Nos. 12902 and 12903 and the issuance of new titles in its name, and for the cancellation of junior encumbrances, including the Republic’s notice. The court granted the petition. Petitioners filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, alleging fraud by Metropolitan’s counsel and excusable negligence for their counsel’s failure to appear. This petition was denied. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Pampanga erred in denying petitioners’ Petition for Relief from Judgment and motion for reconsideration, which were based on alleged fraud and excusable negligence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The issue before the Court was limited to whether the lower court erred in denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment. The Court found no error. The alleged fraud and excusable negligence were not substantiated. Furthermore, the Court noted that the new issue raised by petitioners regarding the alleged excessive levy (claiming properties worth over half a million pesos were sold for a judgment of a little over P26,000) was not involved in the case resolved by the Court of Appeals and was not raised in the lower court during the redemption period. The order denying the Republic of the Philippines’ motion to intervene was also not part of the appeal. The Supreme Court found no error in the appealed decision.