SC upholds ruling on lot ownership

The Supreme Court Second Division denied the petition of Cebuano lot owners for review of a Regional Trial Court decision, later upheld by the Court of Appeals, alleging that the ones selling their lots did not actually own the lots.

The petitioners, Susan Honoridez, Josefina Lopez, and Constantina Sanchez assailed an RTC decision on March 22, 2002 favoring Makilito Mahinay, Jocelyn Sorensen and her husband, Arthur Cabigon, and Felimon Suarez.

The petitioners filed on April 14, 1992 a motion for declaration of nullity of a mortgage deed and for damages, with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of the subject parcel of land.

They alleged that on October 27, 1994, they mortgaged said parcel of land to Sorensen, and that the mortgage deed imposed an exorbitant, unconscionable interest of five percent per month or 60 percent per annum.

They also filed an amended complaint alleging that the same land was earlier mortgaged to Suarez on November 9, 1993, but they were required to execute a deed of sale instead.

They claimed that when the secured obligation had matured, Sorensen offered to help redeem the property and did pay the sum for such purpose, as well as the taxes involved. After such payment, the petitioners executed the mortgage in favor of Sorensen.

Then, lawyer Mahinay filed a motion to intervene, claiming that in an earlier civil case, he and petitioners entered into a compromise agreement giving him the preferential right to buy the said lot if the petitioners decide to dispose it.

But Mahinay discovered that petitioners executed a deed of sale over the same lot in favor of Suarez, prompting him to file an action against petitioners and Suarez.

RTC decided in Mahinay's favor after finding that the contract between Suarez and petitioners was a sale and not an equitable mortgage, giving him the right to redeem the lot from Suarez.

RTC also ordered Suarez to execute a deed of conveyance and to transfer the lot to him, similar to the deed of sale between Suarez and petitioners. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, which became final and executory on February 8, 2001.

Petitioners and Sorensen later opposed Mahinay's motion for intervention, claiming that Suarez could not have sold the lot to Mahinay because Suarez had not purchased it and thus, is not the lot owner.

They claimed that the redemption of the lot was a supervening event so the RTC decision was moot and academic, and "unenforceable," and that Suarez should be sued to protect and preserve their ownership of the lot.

Petitioners maintained that the deed of sale between them and Suarez was a real estate mortgage founded on a loan, and that assuming that they sold the lot to Suarez, ownership over the lot was eventually restored to them because they were able to redeem the same in 1994.

They further asserted that Suarez's admission that they redeemed the lot meant he had no more legal right over the property, thus the RTC decision has no legal leg to stand on.

But the SC said the petitioners' action was "an attempt to reopen an issue which has already been decided with finality."

The High Court upheld the RTC's ruling that the petitioners' stand should have been raised while the civil case was still being heard "since the redemption allegedly occurred while the case was still pending."

"Petitioners clearly erred in their choice of remedy," the decision of the SC read, adding that there was no more "reason to disturb" the RTC ruling. - Liv G. Campo