Cueto v. Collantes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered a judgment on February 17, 1951, granting the plaintiff the right to repurchase certain lands within ninety days from the finality of the judgment. The judgment also imposed obligations on the plaintiff to deliver palay annually to the defendants, Blanca Collantes and Chiu Cho, starting from 1945 until the repurchase or delivery of the lands. Procedural History: The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment with a modification reducing the counterclaim awarded to defendant Chiu Cho. The final entry of judgment by the clerk of court for the Court of Appeals was made on July 8, 1953. Subsequently, on June 29, 1953, the plaintiff filed a petition for review by certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by resolution dated July 16, 1953. The plaintiff's counsel received a copy of this resolution on July 22, 1953. No motion for reconsideration was filed, and the clerk of court made the entry of final judgment on August 7, 1953. The Appeal: While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff assigned his right to repurchase to his brother, Lucilo Cueto. After the record was remanded to the trial court, both brothers deposited the redemption price of P4,656.60 on October 17, 1953. They filed a joint motion praying that the defendants be compelled to execute a deed of reconveyance and deliver the title. The defendants opposed this motion, arguing that the redemption attempt was made beyond the 90-day period from the entry of the Court of Appeals' final judgment. The trial court overruled the opposition and granted the motion in an order entered on October 30, 1953. This order is the subject of the present appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the 90-day period for the exercise of the right of redemption should be counted from the entry of judgment by the Court of Appeals or from the entry of final judgment by the Supreme Court. Whether the assignment of the right to repurchase by the plaintiff to his brother affects the validity of the exercise of that right.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that the plaintiff-appellee exercised his right of redemption within the period prescribed by the original decision. The Court ruled that the 90-day period for redemption should be counted from August 7, 1953, the date of the final entry of judgment after the Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition for review, and not from July 8, 1953, the entry of the Court of Appeals' judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court clarifies that under the Rules of Court, the finality of a Court of Appeals judgment is subject to the party's right to file a petition for certiorari. While Section 8 of Rule 53 suggests entry happens 15 days after notice, this is suspended when a petition for review is filed under Rule 46. The Court notes that the CA should only remand the case for execution after 10 days from entry if no petition for certiorari is filed. Therefore, the date of entry by the CA is held in abeyance to await the final resolution of the Supreme Court. In this case, the entry of final judgment by the SC clerk occurred on August 7, 1953. Counting 90 days from this date, the plaintiff's deposit on October 17, 1953, fell well within the period allowed by the trial court's original decision. Counting from the CA's July 8 entry would ignore the suspensive effect of the SC petition. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the fact that Pedro Cueto assigned his right to repurchase to his brother, Lucilo Cueto, is of no legal moment. The defendants failed to show that the assignment was done to their prejudice. Since the right was exercised within the correct timeframe by the assignee and the original plaintiff jointly, and the redemption money was fully deposited with the clerk of court, the transfer of interest was valid. The primary obligation of the defendants was to reconvey the land upon payment of the price, and the identity of the person paying (provided they held the right) did not change the nature of the defendants' duty. Consequently, the trial court correctly ordered the execution of the deed of reconveyance despite the assignment.
Main Doctrine
The period for exercising the right of redemption is suspended when a petition for review is filed with the Supreme Court. The final entry of judgment, from which the redemption period is to be counted, is deemed to occur only after the Supreme Court has resolved the petition for review, either through a decision or a resolution, and the reglementary period for a motion for reconsideration has lapsed.