This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In denying these motions, the CA held that: (1) under the principle of res judicata, Hernita, et al. are barred from assailing the redemption made by Gepuela, the validity of which had long been settled in LRC Case No. R-3855 and CA GR. CV No. 25605;[37] (2) the nullification of the redemption over Hernita, et al.'s proportionate share does not serve to disturb the final ruling in LRC Case No. R-3855 and CA G.R. CV No. 25605 because Hernita, et al.'s rights as co-owners were not resolved in said cases;[38] (3) the one year period provided under the Rules of Court to redeem applies to redemption of properties sold on execution whereas Hernita, et al.'s right to recover their share is premised on the fact that they are co-owners of the subject property;[39] (4) the lapse of about nine years from the auction sale cannot be equated with laches because of the equitable considerations that Hernita, et al. were neither shown to have been notified of the auction sale in 1986, nor impleaded as parties in the petition for consolidation subsequently filed by defendant Gepuela;[40] (5) the imposition of 12% interest per annum from finality of Decision until fully paid is consistent with the guidelines laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines case.[41] | |||||
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Hernita, et al., in their comment to Gepuela's petition, argue that the doctrine oi res judicata "does not at all attach, because the judgment in LRC Case No. [R-3855] is not valid for lack of due process and in the absence of indispensable parties."[66] As indispensable parties who were not made part of the proceedings, Hernita, et al. claim that they cannot be bound by the decision in LRC Case No. R-3855 or the appeal in CA-GR. No. 25605.[67] | |||||