G.R. Nos. 82170 & 82372, December 21, 1989
TEODORO YBANEZ, CRESCENCIO YBANEZ, ROMEO YBANEZ AND ELPIDIO YBANEZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND IGNACIO GO, doing business under the name and style of “GOKEE MARKETING COMPANY”, respondents.

FACTS

In an ejectment case, petitioners Ybanez brothers obtained a money judgment against respondent Ignacio Go. To satisfy the judgment, Go’s properties were levied upon and sold at a sheriff’s auction to the Ybanez brothers. On April 26, 1982, Go filed an Annulment Suit (Civil Case No. R-21705) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, seeking to nullify the sheriff’s sale due to alleged irregularities and praying for damages. Subsequently, on November 18, 1982, Go filed a separate Reconveyance Case (Civil Case No. R-22573) before the same RTC, alleging he had validly redeemed the auctioned properties from one of the petitioners and praying for a judicial declaration of such redemption and an order for the sheriff to execute a deed of reconveyance.
The two cases were consolidated. Petitioners Ybanez then moved to dismiss the Annulment Suit, arguing that by filing the Reconveyance Case wherein he claimed to have redeemed the property, Go had effectively recognized the validity of the sheriff’s sale and thereby abandoned his cause of action in the Annulment Suit. The RTC agreed and dismissed the Annulment Suit on grounds including litis pendentia and abandonment of claim. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, prompting the Ybanez brothers to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the subsequent filing of the Reconveyance Case by respondent Go constituted a legal abandonment of, or was inconsistent with, his earlier Annulment Suit, thereby justifying its dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals and ruled that the filing of the Reconveyance Case did not constitute a legal basis for dismissing the Annulment Suit. The Court clarified that the two actions presented separate and alternative causes of action that were not inherently inconsistent under the circumstances. The Annulment Suit directly challenged the validity of the auction sale itself based on alleged procedural irregularities. In contrast, the Reconveyance Case proceeded on an alternative premise—that even assuming the sale was valid, Go had subsequently exercised his right of redemption. This alternative pleading is permissible, as a party may set forth two or more statements of a claim alternatively, regardless of consistency.
The legal logic is that the core issue in the Annulment Suit—the validity of the sheriff’s sale—is crucial and must be resolved first. If the sale is found void, the question of redemption becomes moot. If the sale is upheld, then the factual issues surrounding the alleged redemption in the Reconveyance Case can be adjudicated. Therefore, the cases were properly consolidated to avoid multiplicity of suits and unnecessary delay, but the trial court should not have dismissed the Annulment Suit. Instead, it should have proceeded to trial on the merits of the annulment action, as its resolution is logically antecedent to the issues in the reconveyance action. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, reinstated the Annulment Suit, and directed the trial court to proceed with both consolidated cases accordingly.