G.R. No. L-20014 November 27, 1968
FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO and CONSOLACION FLORENTINO CRISOLOGO, petitioners-appellants, vs. ISAAC CENTENO and ASUNCION AQUINO CENTENO, oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

On January 18, 1955, the spouses Francisco Crisologo and Consolacion Florentino (vendees a retro) filed an ex parte petition for consolidation of ownership over two parcels of land, alleging the failure of the vendors, spouses Isaac Centeno and Asuncion Aquino, to repurchase within the stipulated periods in the two contracts of sale with pacto de retro. The lower court granted the petition on January 28, 1955. The vendors later moved to set aside this order, claiming lack of due notification. The lower court initially granted this motion but later set it aside. The vendors appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on June 27, 1958, set aside the lower court’s order, held that the vendors had not been legally notified, and declared the Order of January 28, 1955, a patent nullity. The case was remanded for reopening. After being duly summoned, the vendors filed an answer alleging the contracts were actually equitable mortgages securing usurious loans. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision on October 26, 1960, upholding this allegation, declaring the deeds as equitable mortgages, entitling the vendors to redeem, and denying the petition for consolidation. The vendees appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in not finding the Order of January 28, 1955, valid, final, and executory, and in consequently holding that all subsequent proceedings, including the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court’s 1960 decision, were null and void.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment of October 26, 1960. The appellants’ contention was untenable for three reasons: (1) Article 1607 of the Civil Code requires a judicial order after the vendor has been duly heard in a contentious proceeding. The initial ex parte petition did not name the vendors as respondents, and they were not duly summoned or heard, rendering the January 28, 1955, Order a patent nullity for lack of jurisdiction over the vendors’ persons. (2) The Court of Appeals’ judgment declaring the nullity of the orders for lack of due summons is res judicata on that question. (3) The proceedings after remand, where vendors were duly named as respondents, summoned, and heard, culminating in the 1960 decision, were valid as they complied with the contentious proceeding mandated by Article 1607.