G.R. No. 178591 - SM SYSTEMS CORPORATION (FORMERLY SPRINGSUN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION), VS. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE, DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ, AND HEIRS OF NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TCT Nos. (289237) S-6135, (289236) S-35855, and S-72244 in the name of Victoria Homes were cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT Nos. 120541, 120542, and 123872 were issued in the name of Springsun. Springsun subsequently mortgaged the subject lots to Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) as security for its various loans amounting to P11,545,000.00. When Springsun failed to pay its loans, the mortgage was foreclosed extra-judicially. At the public auction sale, the lots were sold to Banco Filipino, being the highest bidder, but they were eventually redeemed by Springsun. On March 7, 1995, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, a complaint against Springsun and Banco Filipino for Prohibition/ Certiorari , Reconveyance/Redemption, Damages, Injunction with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order or, simply, an action for Redemption. [5] On January 25, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision [6] in favor of respondents, authorizing them to redeem the subject lots from Springsun for the total price of P9,790,612.00. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court affirmed the RTC decision with a modification on the award of attorney's fees. [7] Aggrieved, Springsun elevated the matter to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari . The case was docketed as G.R. No. 161029. On January 19, 2005, we affirmed the CA Decision. [8] With the denial of Springsun's motion for reconsideration, the same became final and executory; accordingly, an entry of judgment was made. [9] Respondents thus moved for the execution of the Decision. [10] Petitioner [11] instituted an action for Annulment of Judgment with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90931. [12] Petitioner sought the annulment of the RTC decision allowing respondents to redeem the subject property. Petitioner argued that it was deprived of the opportunity to present its case on the ground of fraud, manipulations and machinations of respondents. It further claimed that the Department of Agrarian Reform, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over the redemption case. The CA, however, dismissed the petition on October 20, 2005. [13] Its motion for reconsideration was also denied for lack of merit. [14] The matter was elevated to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 171754, but the same was denied on June 28, 2006. [15] After the denial of its motion for reconsideration, the Decision became final and executory; and an entry of judgment was subsequently made. [16] Meanwhile, on December 18, 2003, respondents executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favor of Mariano Nocom (Nocom), authorizing him, among other things, to comply with our January 19, 2005 Decision by paying the redemption price to Springsun and/or to the court. [17] Respondents, however, challenged the power of attorney in an action for revocation with the RTC. In a summary jud