G.R. No. 45333 ; July 27, 1937
TOMAS MATIENZO and AURELIO PALILEO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, GUADALUPE SAN JOSE, ADRIANA FRANCISCO DE GUILATCO, and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay mortgaged three parcels of land to Dr. M.D. Calupitan to secure a P1,000 loan. Dr. Calupitan assigned the credit to Guadalupe San Jose. After the spouses defaulted, San Jose obtained a judgment against them. The sheriff levied upon the lands for execution. Petitioners Tomas Matienzo and Maria Carcalin (later succeeded by Aurelio Palileo) claimed ownership, alleging they had purchased the lands from the spouses under a pacto de retro sale prior to the mortgage. However, the deed for this sale was registered much later than the mortgage deed. The Supreme Court, in a prior case, ruled against Matienzo and Carcalin. During execution, the spouses (through petitioner Palileo as their attorney) opposed the delivery of one parcel, claiming it was an exempt homestead, but agreed to its delivery if paid P300. The court ordered the payment, which was made by San Jose’s assignee, Adriana Francisco de Guilatco. After payment, the sheriff executed the final deed. When the spouses refused to deliver the land, the court issued an order for its delivery. Petitioners Matienzo and Palileo filed this certiorari petition, claiming the order deprived them of their property without due process.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in issuing the order for the delivery of the land to the respondents, thereby depriving the petitioners of their property without due process.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The petitioners failed to establish any right superior to that of the mortgage credit. The alleged pacto de retro sale was registered after the mortgage, and the petitioners’ own acts and declarations (particularly through Palileo as the spouses’ attorney) consistently acknowledged that the spouses remained the owners and possessors of the lands. The petitioners are thus estopped from claiming otherwise. Even if the transaction with Matienzo were considered a mortgage, the credit of Dr. Calupitan (assigned to San Jose) enjoys legal preference. Furthermore, the right of redemption over the lands sold at public auction had already been lost. The order for delivery was a proper consequence of the execution of a final judgment, after the condition for the homestead’s delivery (payment of P300) was satisfied. No abuse of discretion or denial of due process was found.

AI Generated by Armztrong.