Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Spouses Bitte v. Spouses Jonas

    Uploaded by

    Francis Masiglat
    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Spouses Bitte regarding a property sale dispute. Spouses Bitte had been declared in default by the regional trial court for failing to appear at pre-trial hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a party declared in default still maintains the right to appeal on grounds that the judgment is excessive, contrary to evidence, or contrary to law. While facing the circumstances of default, Spouses Bitte could still avail of remedies like appeal or certiorari to challenge both the default declaration and the appellate court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spouses Bitte v. Spouses Jonas

    Uploaded by

    Francis Masiglat
    94 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Spouses Bitte regarding a property sale dispute. Spouses Bitte had been declared in default by the regional trial court for failing to appear at pre-trial hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a party declared in default still maintains the right to appeal on grounds that the judgment is excessive, contrary to evidence, or contrary to law. While facing the circumstances of default, Spouses Bitte could still avail of remedies like appeal or certiorari to challenge both the default declaration and the appellate court's decision.

    Original Description:

    civpro

    Original Title

    43. Spouses Bitte v. Spouses Jonas.docx (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Spouses Bitte regarding a property sale dispute. Spouses Bitte had been declared in default by the regional trial court for failing to appear at pre-trial hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a party declared in default still maintains the right to appeal on grounds that the judgment is excessive, contrary to evidence, or contrary to law. While facing the circumstances of default, Spouses Bitte could still avail of remedies like appeal or certiorari to challenge both the default declaration and the appellate court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    94 views2 pages

    Spouses Bitte v. Spouses Jonas

    Uploaded by

    Francis Masiglat
    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Spouses Bitte regarding a property sale dispute. Spouses Bitte had been declared in default by the regional trial court for failing to appear at pre-trial hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a party declared in default still maintains the right to appeal on grounds that the judgment is excessive, contrary to evidence, or contrary to law. While facing the circumstances of default, Spouses Bitte could still avail of remedies like appeal or certiorari to challenge both the default declaration and the appellate court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Farida Yap Bitte and the heirs of Benjamin D.

    Bitte, namely: ● Armed with the deed of absolute sale executed by


    Jacob Yap Bitte, Shaira Dayanara Yap Bitte, Fatima Yap Bitte Andrea, Spouses Bitte were able to redeem the
    and Allan Robert Yap Bitte vs. Spouses Fred and Rosa Elsa property on Sept 14, 1998 from the highest bidder,
    Serrano Jonas (2015) Thelma Jean Salvana, for Php1.6 M.
    [Mendoza, J.]
    Spouses Bitte sold the property to Ganzon Yap (Ganzon), married
    Topic:​ R
    ​ ule 9​ | Party declared in default’s right to appeal to Haima Yap.
    Nature:​ petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
    RTC  (BR.  13):  ​GRANTED the prayer for the issuance of a
    I. FACTS:  Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing Rosa Elsa and
    Controversy stemmed from two civil cases filed by the parties her agents from disposing the subject property.
    against each other with regard to a contract of sale involving a ● Subsequently, on Nov. 8, 1996, a Writ of Preliminary
    property in Davao City [initially TCT No. T-112717 in the name of Injunction (WPI) was issued in favor of Spouses Bitte.
    RESP Rosa Elsa Serrano Jonas (Rosa), presently TCT No. ● Rosa Elsa countered that despite her appointment of
    T-315273 under the name of Ganzon Yap, married to Haima Yap her mother, Andrea, as her attorney-in-fact/agent, she
    (Spouses Yap)]. later gave her instructions not to sell the property; that
    her revocation barred the consummation of the
    Before Rosa went to Australia, she executed a Special Power of contract to sell, that no authority was given to Cipriano
    Attorney (SPA) authorizing her mother, Andrea Serrano (Andrea), to. receive any advance payment for the property; and
    to sell the property. that Andrea's authority was revoked through a Deed of
    Revocation of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
    May 1996: Cipriano Serrano (Cipriano), son of Andrea and
    brother of Rosa, offered the property for sale to PET Spouses RESP Spouses Jonas filed before the RTC (Civil Case No.
    Benjamin and Farida Yap Bitte (Spouses Bitte) showing them the 27,667-99), a ​complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute 
    authority of Andrea. Sale. 
    ● Cipriano received from Spouses Bitte the amount of
    Php200,000.00 as advance payment for the property. RTC: Consolidated the two civil cases (Civil Case No. 27,667-99
    Later on, on Sept 10, 1996, he received the additional and Civil Case No. 24,771-99)
    amount of Php400,000.00. ● PET Spouses Bitte failed to attend the pre-trial
    ● Counsel of Spouses Bitte withrew and a new one
    Bitte sought a meeting for final negotiation with Rosa, the entered his appearance and filed an MR
    registered owner of the subject property. ● Spouses Bitte again failed to appear in the pre-trial
    ● At that time, Rosa Elsa was in Australia and had no and were, thus, declared non-suited and in default;
    funds to spare for her travel to PH. To enable her to RESP Jonas presented her evidence ex parte
    come to the country, Spouses Bitte paid for her round ● > RTC rendered a Joint Decision, ​confirming the 
    trip ticket. dismissal of Civil Case No. 24,771-96, ruling that the
    ● shortly after her arrival in PH, Rosa revoked the SPA, sale was VALID and directing Spouses Bitte to pay
    through an instrument of even date, and handed a Rosa the amount of Php1,546,752.80, representing
    copy thereof to Andrea. the balance of the sale.

    The parties met at Farida Bitte's office, but no final agreement RESP Spouses Jonas appealed to the CA.
    was reached. The next day, Rosa withdrew from the transaction.
    CA: reversed the RTC and ruled in favor of RESP Spouses
    Oct 17, 1996: Spouses Bitte ​filed before the RTC a Complaint  Jonas, declaring the deed of sale NULL and VOID.
    for Specific Performance with Damages ​seeking to compel ● CA found that Andrea's execution on behalf of Rosa
    Rosa Elsa, Andrea and Cipriano to transfer to their names the title Elsa of the deed of absolute sale in favor of Spouses
    over the subject property. Bitte was ​void and unenforceable as the ​authority to 
    ● While the case was pending, Andrea sold the subject represent Rosa had already been revoked 
    property to Spouses Bitte, through a deed of absolute ● Without the authority to effect the conveyance, the
    sale, dated February 25, 1997, and notarized by one contract was without effect to Rosa, who was a
    Atty. Bolcan, Jr. stranger to the conveyance in favor of Spouses Bitte.
    Rosa Elsa did not consent to the transaction
    Rosa asked Andrea about the sale. Her questions about the sale, ● CA DENIED PET Spouses Bitte’s MR
    however, were ignored and her pleas for the cancellation of the
    sale and restoration of the property to her possession were Hence, this petition.
    disregarded.
    PET’s main allegation: The deed of absolute sale executed by
    Undisputed by the parties is the fact that Rosa earlier mortgaged Andrea was valid and legal because the SPA was not validly
    the subject property to Mindanao Development Bank. Upon failure revoked as the revocation was not registered in the Office of the
    to pay the loan on maturity, the mortgage was foreclosed and sold Register of Deeds [on this, SC said that the deed of absolute sale
    at a public auction. executed by Andrea in favor of PET Spouses Bitte is
    unenforceable against Rosa because of their notice of the before this Court. Those remedies necessarily include an appeal
    revocation of the agency | ​doctrine of apparent authority]​ . by ​Certiorari ​under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

    RESP’s main contention [RELEVANT TO TOPIC RULE 9]: V. DISPOSITIVE:  
    given that RTC declared the Spouses Bitte in default, they have Petition DENIED.
    already lost the legal personality to resort to this petition before
    the Court.

    II. PROCEDURE SUMMARY 


     
    Action   Filed By  Venue  Decision 
     

    Complaint for PET RTC


    Specific Br. 13
    Performance with
    Damages

    Complaint for RES RTC Consolidated


    Annulment of Deed Br. 13 with case
    of Absolute Sale above

    Appeal RES CA GRANTED

    MR PET CA DENIED

    Petition for review PET SC DENIED


    on certiorari under
    Rule 45

    III. RELEVANT ISSUE: 


    W/N PET Spouses Bitte have already lost the legal personality to
    resort to this petition before this Court, as they were declared in
    default by the RTC? ​NO

    IV. RATIONALE: 
     
    The SC did not see merit in RESP Spouses Jonas’ claim that the
    door to any reliefs for Spouses Bitte, be it through MR or this
    subject petition, was closed by the finality and immutability of the
    RTC declaration of their default. In other words, it is their stand
    that the PET Spouses Bitte do not have the right to obtain
    recourse from this Court.

    The SC upheld the rule that the “right to appeal from the judgment
    by default is not lost and can be done on the grounds that the
    amount of judgment is excessive or is different in kind from that
    prayed for, or that the plaintiff failed to prove the material
    allegations of his complaint, or that the decision is contrary to
    law.”

    If a party who has been declared in default on the basis of the


    decision having been issued against the evidence or the law, that
    person cannot be denied the remedy and opportunity to assail the
    judgment in the appellate court.

    Despite being burdened by the circumstances of default, the


    PETs may still use all other remedies available to question not
    only the judgment of default but also the judgment on appeal

    You might also like