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

Petitioners, the Ybanez brothers, secured a favorable judgment in an ejectment case against respondent Ignacio Go for unpaid rentals. A writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and auction sale of Go’s properties, with a certificate of sale issued to the Ybanez brothers on July 31, 1981. 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, after an alleged but disputed redemption payment to one of the petitioners, Go filed a separate Reconveyance Case (Civil Case No. R-22573) on November 18, 1982, praying for a judicial declaration of valid redemption and an order for the sheriff to execute a deed of reconveyance. The two cases were later consolidated.
The Ybanez brothers moved to dismiss the Annulment Suit, arguing that by filing the Reconveyance Case, wherein Go alleged he had redeemed the property, Go had effectively recognized the validity of the sheriff’s sale and thereby abandoned his cause in the annulment action. The RTC agreed and dismissed the Annulment Suit on grounds including abandonment and litis pendentia. Go appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC’s dismissal order.

ISSUE

Whether the subsequent filing of the Reconveyance Case by respondent Ignacio 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 fundamental validity of the auction sale itself based on alleged procedural irregularities. In contrast, the Reconveyance Case assumed, arguendo, the sale’s validity and alternatively sought to enforce a right of redemption, presenting factual questions such as whether redemption money was paid and whether it was timely.
The legal logic is that an alternative cause of action is permitted under the rules of procedure. A party may pursue different remedies simultaneously, especially when the validity of the primary transaction (the auction sale) is in serious doubt. The resolution of the Annulment Suit is crucial, as it is the predicate for the alternative claim. If the sale is declared void, the redemption issue becomes moot. If the sale is upheld, then the court can proceed to resolve the redemption claims. The cases were properly consolidated to avoid multiplicity of suits and delay, and the trial court should have proceeded to hear the Annulment Suit on its merits instead of dismissing it. The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the Annulment Suit and for the RTC to proceed with the consolidated trials.