G.R. No. 176123 - JOSE CABARAL TIU, VS. FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION.[G.R. No. 185265] JOSE CABARAL TIU, VS. TIMBER EXPORTS, INC., ANGEL DOMINGO, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERFECTO MONDARTE, JR. AND CESAR DACAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff corporation, FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION, ORDERING defendants JULIO G. TARONGOY and JOSE CABARAL TIU jointly and severally: But first, annulling and nullifying the Execution Sale conducted on May 23, 1990 described in the Certificate of Sale issued May 23, 1990 (Exhibit C); Ordering defendant JOSE CABARAL TIU to return to the plaintiff corporation the equipment and items , mostly vehicles and trucks acquired by him by virtue and in consequence of the aforesaid sale or to pay to plaintiff company, jointly and solidarily, the value of the motor vehicles, trucks, crankshaft, and propeller shaft described and listed in par. 8 (Complaint); Ordering defendants, jointly and solidarily, to indemnify plaintiff as damages for having deprived (sic) of the possession and use of the aforedescribed properties, equipment and items, in the amounts for each as averred in par. 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Complaint; Ordering defendants, jointly and solidarily, to pay plaintiff P150,000 by way of attorney's fees, and costs . [13] (underscoring supplied) In finding for FPC, the Manila RTC held that no notice of sale of personal property on execution was posted in three public places not less than five days prior to the Pagadian case execution sale held on May 23, 1990, resulting in its nullity. [14] On FPC's motion, the Manila RTC issued a writ of execution on May 22, 2006, [15] prompting Sheriff Salvador Dacumos to issue a notice of levy on execution on May 25, 2006 [16] upon the real properties of petitioner located in Pagadian City. Petitioner challenged the Manila RTC Decision via a petition for annulment of judgment [17] before the Court of Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City which forwarded the same to the Court of Appeals, Manila for appropriate action. [18] The appellate court dismissed the petition outright by Resolution of August 23, 2006, [19] holding that petitioner was not able to establish his claim of extrinsic or collateral fraud, which refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside of the trial whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting his case fully; [20] and that having participated in the proceedings before the Manila RTC in which he claimed the amount of P73,739 representing the remaining balance (which was not realized from the Pagadian case execution sale), attorney's fees of P50,000 and expenses of litigation, petitioner was estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Manila RTC. [21] His motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated December 5, 2006, [22] petitioner comes before this Court through the present Petition for Review on Certiorari [23] bearing G.R. No. 176123. Petitioner argues that, among other things, estoppel does not lie against him as the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised in the Manila RTC through his pleading styled as a Comment on the Pleadings Relative to the Other Civil Cases Filed by Pla