Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court of April 29, 1980, is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment rendered: (1) Setting aside the decision of the lower Court; (2) Declaring plaintiff the owner of three-fourteenth (3/14) pro indiviso x x x portion of Cadastral Lots Nos. 1557 and 1558 of the Albay Cadastre; (3) Declaring plaintiff entitled to exercise the right of redemption of said properties which were sold by Lim Kok Chiong to defendant Legazpi Avenue Hardware by returning to sai…
WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court of April 29, 1980, is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment rendered: (1) Setting aside the decision of the lower Court; (2) Declaring plaintiff the owner of three-fourteenth (3/14) pro indiviso x x x portion of Cadastral Lots Nos. 1557 and 1558 of the Albay Cadastre; (3) Declaring plaintiff entitled to exercise the right of redemption of said properties which were sold by Lim Kok Chiong to defendant Legazpi Avenue Hardware by returning to said vendee within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice from the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Albay of the records of this case from this Court pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, the sum of P20,000.00 plus expenses of the contract and other legitimate payments made by defendants by reason of the sale and such necessary and useful expenses that may have been made on the properties by defendants; (4) In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount of expenses of the contract and other legitimate expenses made by reason of the sale and the necessary and useful expenses made by defendant on the properties, the court a quo shall receive the evidence of the parties solely for the purpose of determining said amounts to be paid by plaintiff in addition to the P20,000.00. Pending determination of the said amount and upon payment by plaintiff of the sum of P20,000.00 to defendant within the aforesaid period of thirty (30) days above-mentioned, defendant shall execute an appropriate deed of conveyance in favor of plaintiff of the properties in question without prejudice to the determination of the additional amounts to be paid by plaintiff to defendant. Should defendant refuse or fail to execute said deed of conveyance within thirty (30) days the Court a quo shall order its clerk of court to execute said deed of conveyance. No pronouncement as to costs. [5] LACHO having failed to appeal therefrom, the aforesaid decision became final and executory. On November 12, 1981, Lim filed in the same Civil Case No. 2953 a motion to annotate the said Resolution of the Court of Appeals of March 11, 1989 in G.R. No. 44770-R on the certificate of title of the spouses Po Lam. He likewise moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the said Resolution and for the execution in his favor of a deed of conveyance of the lots litigated upon. However, the said motions were all denied by the trial court in its Order dated February 4, 1982, the decretal portion of which Order reads: WHEREFORE, reserving to the party/plaintiff the right to institute an action on whether or not the acquisition of the properties in question by spouses Roy Po Lam and Josefa Ong Po Lam, were made in good faith, or whether in the process the cooperation of the Register of Deeds pave the way for such transfer, the writ of execution issued under and by virtue of the Order dated October 20, 1981 is hereby ordered Quash. Consequently likewise, the motion filed by
WHITE HOUSE AUTO SUPPLY, INC., VS. L & R CORPORATION
G.R. No. 130722 -
CaseMariano v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 159755 -
CaseG.R. No. 130380 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND GREATER MANILA EQUIPMENT MARKETING CORPORATION. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 130380 -