Dando v. Fraser
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cornelia F. Carlos sold the Argentina Club and Disco (CLUB) to Amelia Gayon on November 15, 1983. On the same day, Gayon executed a Deed of Trust, acknowledging that she purchased the CLUB for respondent Norman J. Fraser, who provided all the funds for its purchase and operation. On April 9, 1984, Fraser sold the CLUB on installment to Silverio Puno, Arnaldo L. Domingo, and Ronald Clifton Vercoe, allowing them possession on April 1, 1984. On April 10, 1984, Gayon consulted petitioner Domingo R. Dando for legal advice regarding Puno and Domingo's actions to take the CLUB. Dando advised Gayon that she had the right to possess the CLUB and should file a case, even suggesting she take it by force. Acting on this advice, Gayon, with ten policemen, evicted Puno and his partners on April 18, 1984. In anticipation of a case by Puno, Dando prepared a Deed of Sale dated April 2, 1984, whereby Gayon allegedly sold the CLUB to him for P350,000.00, antedating it to appear earlier than Fraser's sale to Puno. A receipt for this amount was also prepared and signed by Gayon. Dando then convinced Gayon to let a supposed interested buyer, Mr. Fujiwara, operate the CLUB for a month, but it turned out Dando himself operated it. Puno and his partners filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against Gayon and "Atty. Yam" (Dando's law partner). Dando misrepresented himself as "Atty. Yam" by using his calling card. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ordered Gayon and all persons claiming rights under her to vacate the premises, pay P20,000.00 monthly for use and occupation, and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. On December 14, 1984, Gayon and "Atty. Yam" (Dando) were evicted pursuant to the MTC's order. Procedural History: Aggrieved by his eviction, Dando filed a criminal case for estafa against Fraser, alleging Fraser falsely pretended ownership and sold the CLUB to Puno, leading to Dando's eviction. This case was dismissed. Dando then filed an amended complaint for ownership, possession, annulment of contract, and damages against Fraser, Puno, Domingo, Gayon, and Vercoe. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted a preliminary mandatory injunction but later dissolved it upon Fraser et al.'s counterbond, allowing Puno and his partners to resume operations. Dando appealed this order to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed his petition. Dando subsequently filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against Fraser and Marita S. Caymo (allegedly Fraser's wife) with the RTC of Siniloan, Laguna. He sought P510,000.00 (purchase price of the CLUB sold by Fraser to Puno) and attachment of Caymo's property, alleging she was Fraser's dummy. He also sought damages for his eviction, claiming he was not given his day in court. The RTC ordered the attachment of Caymo's property. On June 22, 1987, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Dando, ordering Fraser and Caymo to pay him substantial amounts for indemnity, moral damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Fraser and Caymo appealed. The RTC later granted Dando's motion for execution pending appeal. Fraser and Caymo filed petitions for certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the RTC's order granting execution pending appeal but required Dando to post a bond. The CA later ordered Dando to increase the bond. Dando filed a motion to enforce the writ of execution, and the RTC ordered the sheriff to proceed with the auction sale of Caymo's property. Dando was the highest bidder and was issued a Certificate of Sale. Dando then filed a motion for writ of possession, which the RTC denied, ordering the elevation of the case to the CA. On July 3, 1991, the CA reversed the RTC's decision, declared the execution sale of Caymo's property null and void, and dismissed Dando's complaint. Dando's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Dando filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising errors concerning the CA's consideration of matters not assigned as errors, its ruling on the validity of the execution sale despite alleged finality in another case, and its reversal of the RTC's findings of fact.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the validity of the execution sale of respondent Caymo's property when such matter was not properly assigned as an error or argued in the brief. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the validity of the execution sale of respondent Caymo's property, which petitioner claims had already been resolved with finality by the same court in another case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of fact of the trial court, particularly regarding the validity of the Deed of Trust and the ownership of the CLUB.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The execution sale of Marita Caymo's property is declared null and void, and the complaint filed by petitioner is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals considering matters not assigned as error: The Court held that while generally appellate courts are limited to assigned errors, exceptions exist. An unassigned error closely related to a properly assigned error, or one upon which the determination of the assigned error depends, may be considered. The Court is also clothed with ample authority to review matters not assigned as errors if necessary for a just decision. In this case, the existence of a marriage between respondents Caymo and Fraser was crucial to determining the validity of the attachment and execution sale of Caymo's property, making the issue of the sale's validity intrinsically linked to the assigned error concerning the marriage. Therefore, the CA did not err in considering the validity of the execution sale. On the alleged finality of the issue in another case: The Court clarified that the petitions for certiorari filed with the CA (docketed as CA-G.R. Nos. 12713 and 12718) were original and independent actions questioning the RTC's jurisdiction in granting execution pending appeal. These petitions did not resolve the merits of the case but only the propriety of the advance execution. Thus, no finality as to the merits of the case was achieved in those proceedings, and the CA was not precluded from ruling on the validity of the execution sale in the present appeal. On the reversal of the trial court's findings of fact regarding the Deed of Trust and ownership: The Court affirmed the CA's findings. The CA correctly found the photocopy of the alleged marriage contract between Fraser and Caymo inadmissible for non-compliance with the Rules of Court. A certification from the Local Civil Registrar, attesting to the absence of a marriage record, was given more weight. Consequently, the attachment and execution sale of Caymo's property were deemed invalid. Regarding the ownership of the CLUB, the Court noted that the Mayor's Permit was issued in the name of Amelia Gayon, a Filipino citizen. Under Section 5 of the Nationalization of Retail Law (Republic Act No. 1180), such a license is conclusive evidence of ownership as far as private parties are concerned, even if an alien furnished the funds. Furthermore, the Court found that the Deed of Sale and receipt between Gayon and petitioner Dando were simulated, as evidenced by Gayon's testimony and the inconsistencies in Dando's claims about possession and the timing of events. The antedating of documents and Dando's misrepresentation as "Atty. Yam" further supported the conclusion that the sale to him was not intended to produce legal effects.
Main Doctrine
A license to engage in a retail business issued in the name of a Filipino citizen is conclusive evidence of ownership as far as private parties are concerned, notwithstanding the alienage of another individual who may have furnished the funds for the business. Furthermore, a photocopy of a marriage contract is inadmissible as evidence if it does not comply with the Rules of Court, and a certification from the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the absence of a marriage record holds greater weight.