GR L 18830; (October, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18830 October 30, 1965
TEOPISTO B. DE BALANGA, for herself and in behalf, as guardian ad litem, of her minor children, Nelson Balanga and Rey Balanga, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. LUIS MANALANG, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Teopista B. de Balanga and her minor children, Nelson and Rey, filed a complaint against defendant-appellee Luis Manalang. The complaint alleged that Teopista and her deceased husband Faustino Balanga bought a residential lot and built a house thereon with their common funds, with the title issued in Teopista’s name. Upon Faustino’s death, the minor children became his heirs, owning an undivided one-half interest in the property. In a prior case (Civil Case No. 23621), the spouses Catalino Clemente and Andrea Reyes, represented by counsel Manalang, obtained a judgment against Teopista for a loan. The property was levied upon and sold at public auction to the Clemente spouses to satisfy the judgment. The auction sale was allegedly not published in both English and Spanish. The Clementes later transferred the property to Manalang. The complaint sought to annul the execution sale and the subsequent transfer to Manalang, alleging damage to the minors’ interests and that Manalang, as counsel in the prior case, improperly acquired the property. The lower court dismissed the complaint on grounds of lack of cause of action against Manalang, res judicata, and improper venue.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action, res judicata, and improper venue.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case. The Court held that the facts alleged in the complaint constituted a cause of action for annulment of the execution sale, at least concerning the one-half interest of the minor children. However, the action should have been directed not only against Manalang but also against the Clemente spouses and the Sheriff of Manila. The grounds of res judicata and improper venue were improperly considered by the lower court as they were not raised in the defendant’s motion to dismiss.