Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. NO. 139503 -

G.R. NO. 139503 -

Cited Laws

RA 605,RA 197,RA 245,RA 46,RA 234,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal is hereby DISMISSED . The decision of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City is AFFIRMED with the added modification that the award of moral damages and attorney's fees previously adjudged against appellant and third-party defendants is hereby cancelled." [4] The assailed Resolution denied reconsideration.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal is hereby DISMISSED . The decision of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City is AFFIRMED with the added modification that the award of moral damages and attorney's fees previously adjudged against appellant and third-party defendants is hereby cancelled." [4] The assailed Resolution denied reconsideration. The progenitor of this case was an original action for specific performance filed by respondent's predecessor, Vicenta Dimalanta, against petitioner's predecessor, Manuela Jandoc, before Branch 1 of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of South Cotabato in General Santos City. [5] In that case, the CFI ruled in favor of Vicenta; Manuela was ordered to execute a registrable document in favor of the former. On appeal, the appellate court in CA-GR No. 56268-R reversed the CFI and this time ruled in favor of Manuela and dismissed the Complaint of Vicenta. The Supreme Court denied Vicenta's appeal; thus, the Decision became final and executory. Manuela then filed an Omnibus Motion, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 1365 and a Writ of Possession in Land Registration Case No. N-78. This Motion was denied by the RTC of General Santos City, Branch 22. On appeal, [6] the appellate court [7] found neither error nor abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. [8] According to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), Manuela must seek her remedies in an appropriate action, in which the issues concerning the ownership and possession of the portion claimed and occupied by Vicenta may be properly litigated. On October 28, 1987, in accordance with the last Decision cited above, Petitioner Catalina Jandoc-Gatdula instituted the present action against Respondent Julio Dimalanta. The case was for recovery of possession and/or ownership of real property, with damages and attorney's fees. [9] After due trial and hearing, the RTC dismissed the Complaint, disposing as follows: "ACCORDINGLY, judgments are hereby rendered dismissing [petitioner's] complaint and upholding the [Respondent] Dimalanta's counterclaim declaring him absolute owner of the disputed property and directing the [petitioner] to convey Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19812 to said [respondent]; Ordering the deeds of mortgage over the property executed by [petitioner] and the third-party defendants cancelled and of no force and effect; Ordering the [petitioner] jointly and severally with third-party defendant Ricardo Yap to pay to the [Respondent] Dimalanta moral damages in the sum of P500,000,00 lawyer's fees of P100,000,00 plus costs." [10] The Facts The CA adopted the trial court's narration of the events leading to this case, as follows: "Way back on December 6, 1948, when General Santos City was still a rustic, backwater community and sparsely populated, Manuela Jandoc sold to Vicenta Aguilar de Natividad [a] portion of an unregistered land with an area of 1,680 square meters, more or less, situated at Dadiangas, Buayan, Cotabat