This decision orders Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale in

This decision orders serra to execute and deliver the

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 11 pages.

decision which became =nal and executory on 15 April 1994. This decision orders Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of RCBC. However, to evade his obligation to RCBC, Serra transferred the property to his mother Ablao, who then transferred it to Liok. Serra's action prompted RCBC to =le the Annulment case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra for his own advantage. x x x. 43 Serra and Spouses Andueza are guilty of indirect contempt. As a party in G.R. No. 203241, Serra cannot feign ignorance of the Court's decision and restraining order in that case. The TRO was issued on 3 December 2012 while the decision was promulgated on 10 July 2013. By virtue of the TRO, which was made permanent, Serra was enjoined to perform any act to remove RCBC from the subject property. Yet, by defaulting on his loan obligation with Andueza, and Andueza's foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, Serra in effect allowed the removal of RCBC from the subject property. Serra's conduct tended to impede the administration of justice by effectively allowing RCBC to be removed from the premises of the subject property, in contravention of the clear directive in the decision and restraining order in G.R. No. 203241. Therefore, Serra is guilty of indirect contempt and accordingly =ned P30,000. TAIaHE Serra also claims that "he can no longer execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of [RCBC] because the subject property was already foreclosed and sold in public auction in favor of Spouses Eduardo and Dina Andueza x x x." 44 44 In other words, Serra alleges that a supervening event — the foreclosure sale in favor of Spouses Andueza — occurred precluding the execution of the Court's decision in G.R. No. 203241. In Abrigo v. Flores , 45 the Court held: A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became =nal and executory, or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained =nality, including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time. In CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
Image of page 7
that event, the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution, or he may move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event. The party who alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should necessarily establish the facts by competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment. The Court is not convinced that a supervening event occurred which would effectively prevent the execution of the decision in G.R. No. 203241. While the foreclosure sale proceeded on 24 September 2014, after the =nality of the decision in G.R. No. 203241, the real estate mortgage in favor of Spouses Andueza was executed on 21 September 2011 while G.R. No. 203241 was pending. Serra could not possibly be unaware that a foreclosure sale would likely transpire since he was the mortgagor who defaulted on his loan obligation. Clearly, Serra performed acts intended to defeat and
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 11 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Injunction

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture