6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 501

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

49

RAYMUNDO A. CRYSTAL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and PELAGIA OCANG, PACITA, TEODULO,
FELICISIMO, PABLO, LYDIA, DIOSCORA and
RODRIGO, all surnamed DE GRACIA, respondents.

Execution; Redemption; There is no valid redemption after a

payment in check had been din honored.—The decision under
review holds that under Article 1249 of the Civil Code, “the
delivery of promissory notes payable to order or bills of exchange
or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment
only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of
the creditor they have been impaired”; “that a check is one form of
a draft or commercial paper” and “its delivery by the debtor to the
creditor can only produce the effect of payment if said check is
honored by the bank; and that “in the present case there is no
dispute that the check (above referred to) was not honored.” Upon
these premises, We can perceive no legal reason to disagree with
the appellate court’s conclusion that “the delivery of the check by
Crystal (the petitioner) to the sheriff did not constitute a valid
redemption.”
Civil law; Payment and performance; A check produces the
effect of payment only when it has been cashed.—In so upholding
the Court of Appeals, We do not mean to disregard the ruling laid
down in Javellana vs. Mirasol, 40 Phil. 761, 770-771, to the effect
that payment of redemption price by means of a check for the
amount due does not render the redemption invalid. Indeed, the
statement in Javellana that “the check as a medium of payment
in commercial transactions is too firmly established by usage to
permit of any doubt upon this point at the present day” still holds
true. But there is nothing in that ruling that changes the legal
concept of a payment by check as defined in Article 1249 of the
Civil Code, invoked by the appellate court. In other words, the law
is that a check produces the effect of payment only when It has
been cashed. In the instant case, the check in question was found
by the appellate court to have been dishonored when presented

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

for encashment, and, as observed earlier, no ponderous reason has

been shown to enable Us to hold otherwise.
Certiorari; Jurisdiction; On equitable grounds, the appellate
is justified in ruling upon issue not squarely raised in the petition.
—Petitioner complains that the Court of Appeals gravely abused
its discretion when it decided the question of validity of the
redemption in dispute, considering that the issue raised in the
petition before it was solely about the alleged lack of jurisdiction
of the trial court to issue a writ of possession in Civil Case No. R-
1666, while Civil Case No. 62-T, which was precisely filed upon
order of the court in the former case for the specific purpose of
threshing out the issue of validity of petitioner’s redemption, is
still pending and undecided. . . Considerations of equity and
justice compel Us to overlook in this case the technical flaws in
the procedure observed both by the trial court and the Court of
Appeals, it being apparent to Us that to prolong this litigation
further would not alter its final outcome.
Courts; Jurisdiction; Trial court that heard the original case
may decide on the validity of the redemption under it.—With
respect to the point of jurisdiction raised by petitioner in
connection with the action of the trial court of passing in Civil
Case No. 1666 on the efficacy of the redemption when that issue is
precisely the subject of Civil Case No. 62-T, We do not find
petitioner’s contention to be sufficiently well taken. Whether the
validity of a redemption of property sold under a judgment of a
court should be determined by the court that rendered the
judgment or by another court in a separate proceeding is not
actually a question of jurisdiction in its absolute sense. Indeed, it
is not juridically proper that the court that has rendered the
judgment should be exclusively deprived of authority to clear up
matters related to the ultimate satisfaction thereof.
Same; Same; Constitutional law; Due process; Resolution of
an issue pending in another separate case when not in violation of
due process.—It is true the trial court at that time opined that the
appropriate remedy is a separate action and that following that
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

observation petitioner filed Civil Case No. 62-T, but when, during
the pendency of said separate case, petitioner was able to regain
possession of the property, the issue of possession pressed by
private respondents in Civil Case No. 1666 acquired a character of
urgency, and inasmuch as anyway, in the aborted contempt
proceedings all the parties had already been fully heard, the court
in the latter case, which is actually the same one having
cognizance of Civil Case 62-T must have realized that it would be
best in the interest of a more expeditious administration of justice
and a more speedy disposition of the controversy to resolve the
urgent issue of possession by

503

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 503

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

determining already in Civil Case No. 1666 the basic question

relative to the validity of the redemption made by petitioner by
means of the check in dispute. It must be admitted that in a sense
such a step was inconsistent with the court’s prior pose about an
independent suit, apart from its being a deviation from the
general rule aforereferred to. The peculiar circumstances of this
case, however, properly justified the resort to the exception to said
rule, for all the parties in the two actions are exactly identical, the
issues and the evidence are also the same ones in both cases, and
even the court and the judge are one and the same, hence no one
could have been caught unaware by the result that eventually
developed. No one can complain that he has not had his day in
court in regard to the matter in dispute.

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Zosa & Zosa Law Offices and Koh Law Offices for
petitioner.
     Gonzalo B. Callanta for private respondents.

BARREDO, J.:

Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G. R. No. SP-00506 entitled “Raymundo A. Crystal vs.
Hon. Pio B. Ferandos, et al.” dismissing the petition for
certiorari which sought the annulment and setting aside of
the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Civil
Case No. R-1666 dated May 31, 1971 directing the issuance
of a writ of possession in favor of herein private
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

respondents Pelagia Ocang, et al. of four parcels of land

situated at Toledo. Cebu, which said respondents had
purchased at an execution sale held in implementation of
the judgment in said Civil Case No. R-1666, upon the
ground that herein petitioner, as purchaser of the rights of
the judgment debtors therein and who had previously
taken possession thereof, ceased to have any right to
continue in possession when he failed to opportunely
exercise the right of redemption in the manner prescribed
by the rules.
According to the Court of Appeals, this case arose from
the following facts:

“In Civil Case No. R-1666, of the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
entitled Pelagia Ocang, et al. vs. Vidal Montayre, as
administrator of the estate of Nicolas Rafols, judgment was
rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs P30,609.00
as damages. On appeal, this Court affirmed the decision of the
trial court. After the judgment had

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

become final, a writ of execution was issued and five (5) parcels of
land belonging to the estate, situated at Toledo, Cebu, were on
May 24, 1957 sold at public auction to Pelagia Ocang as the
highest bidder for P10,000.00 (Annex “A”). On May 17, 1958, the
heirs of Nicolas Rafols assigned their right of redemption over
four (4) of the five (5) parcels of land to Raymundo Crystal (Annex
“B”), which assignment was approved by the probate court on May
23, 1958. By virtue of the order, Crystal deposited a check for
P11,200.00 with the Provincial Sheriff of Cebu on said date and
on May 28, 1958, the Provincial Sheriff issued a deed of
redemption (Annex “C”). Crystal took possession of the lands and
cultivated the same.
In February, 1960, Ocang took possession of the four (4) parcels
of land, claiming that since the check for the redemption was
dishonored for lack of sufficient funds, the redemption was null
and void. Crystal then filed a motion in Civil Case No. R-1666
seeking to cite Ocang in contempt of court.
On June 4, 1960, the trial court denied the motion to hold
Ocang in contempt of court, observing that another action, and
not contempt proceedings, is the proper proceeding where the
validity of the redemption may be raised (Annex “D”).
Following the observation of the trial court, Crystal filed Civil
Case No. 62-1 against Ocang seeking a declaration of ownership

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

in his favor, plus damages.

During the pendency of Civil Case No. 62-1, however, Crystal
was able to regain possession of the four (4) parcels of land.
“On June 23, 1969, the trial court in Civil Case No. R-1666
granted a writ of possession of the four (4) parcels of land to
Ocang (Annex “F”).
Upon Crystals motion, the trial court set aside the order of
June 23, 1969 and annulled the writ of possession issued in
Ocang’s favor.
Ocang then moved to reconsider the order annulling the writ of
possession, which motion was opposed by Crystal The trial court
held in abeyance the various incidents of the case.
Subsequently, Ocang filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance
of an alias writ of possession and this was reiterated on August
15, 1970.
On May 31, 1971, the trial court issued an order reviving the
order for the issuance of a writ of possession dated June 23, 1969
and declaring the definite deed of sale executed by the Provincial
Sheriff of Cebu and the writ of possession issued by the clerk of
court on June 24, 1969 in full force and effect (Annex “I”).
Crystal moved to reconsider the order of May 31, 1971. which
was. however, denied by the trial court (Annex “K”).
Hence, the present petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction which was given due course. Upon petitioner’s filing of
a cash bond in the amount of P500.00, a writ of preliminary
injunction was issued.” (Pp. 24-26, Rec.)

505

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 505

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

As to the check for P11,200.00 delivered by petitioner to the

Provincial Sheriff of Cebu to pay for the redemption of the
lands herein involved, the Court of Appeals found that:

“x x x. In the present case there is no dispute that the check was

not honored. It is claimed by Crystal, the redemptioner, that the
check became stale and was consequently dishonored by the bank
thereby blaming Ocang for its dishonor. It appears, however, that
the check became stale because Crystal opposed its release by the
Sheriff to Ocangon the ground that Ocang failed to render an
accounting of the rents the latter received during the redemption
period.” (Pp. 29-30, Rec.)

Bound as this Court is by these facts found by the appellate

court, there being no adequate allegation that the same are
not supported by substantial evidence, the only issue

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

remaining for Us to resolve is whether or not the Court of

Appeals committed an error of law in holding that the
redemption purportedly made by petitioner on May 23,
1958 by delivering the aforementioned check for P11,200.00
to the sheriff is a sufficient compliance with the
requirement of payment of the redemption price under
Section 30 of Rule 39. To properly put in issue whether or
not a decision of the Court of Appeals has substantial basis
in the evidence, a general allegation to such effect is utterly
insufficient, if only because the intermediate court should
be considered as having duly studied all relevant angles of
the case before it, fully conscious of its obligation and
responsibility to the parties that its decision should be in
accordance with law and justice. Thus, to warrant action on
the part of the Supreme Court, the petition for review must
allege particular facts and circumstances discernible in the
record indicating the supposed inadequate foundation of
the appellate court’s questioned findings of fact. There are
no such allegations in the instant petition. Quite on the
contrary, it is worth observing here that it is not disputed
by petitioner, indeed he emphasizes, that the sheriff has
been keeping the check in question in his possession all the
time up to the present, in the sense that allegedly it has
been periodically changed to avoid being stale. And this is
not as it should be. The sheriff acted irregularly in doing so
and he has thereby prevented its being duly considered as
payment. Indeed, in such instances, it is the duty of the
sheriff to encash the check without any loss of time in order
that corresponding rights of the parties may not be left
hanging in uncertainty, and to
506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

enable the ones concerned to proceed in the prosecution or

protection of their rights as the resulting situation may
demand. What is more, from the extant circumstances, the
Court gathers the impression that indeed the same had
been or would be dishonored.
The decision under review holds that under Article 1249
of the Civil Code, “the delivery of promissory notes payable
to order or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents
shall produce the effect of payment only when they have
been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they
have been impaired”; “that a check is one form of a draft or
commercial paper” and “its delivery by the debtor to the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

creditor can only produce the effect of payment if said

check is honored by the bank; and that “in the present case
there is no dispute that the check (above referred to) was
not honored.” Upon these premises, We can perceive no
legal reason to disagree with the appellate court’s
conclusion that “the delivery of the check by Crystal (the
petitioner) to the sheriff did not constitute a valid
redemption.”
In so upholding the Court of Appeals, We do not mean to
disregard the ruling laid down in Javellana vs. Mirasol, 40
Phil. 761, 770-771, to the effect that payment of a
redemption price by means of a check for the amount due
does not render the redemption invalid. Indeed, the
statement in Javellana that “the check as a medium of
payment in commercial transactions is too firmly
established by usage to permit of any doubt upon this point
at the present day” (id. at p. 771) still holds true. But there
is nothing in that ruling that changes the legal concept of a
payment by check as defined in Article 1249 of the Civil
Code, invoked by the appellate court. In other words, the
law is that a check produces the effect of payment only
when it has been cashed. In the instant case, the check in
question was found by the appellate court to have been
dishonored when presented for encashment, and, as
observed earlier, no ponderous reason has been shown to
enable Us to hold otherwise.
Petitioner complains that the Court of Appeals gravely
abused its discretion when it decided the question of
validity of the redemption in dispute, considering that the
issue raised in the petition before it was solely about the
alleged lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to issue a writ
of possession in Civil Case No. R-1666, while Civil Case No.
62-T, which was precisely filed upon order of the court in
the former case for the
507

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 507

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

specific purpose of threshing out the issue of validity of

petitioner’s redemption, is still pending and undecided.
Indeed, it is true that when private respondents were
charged with contempt for having taken possession of the
subject properties after “the check for redemption was
dishonored for lack of sufficient funds,” (p. 2, Decision,
Court of Appeals, Annex A of the Petition) the trial court
observed that another action not contempt proceedings is
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

the proper remedy, and pursuant1 to said observation,

petitioner filed Civil Case No. 62-T. Thus, while the point
raised by petitioner appears to be well taken, on the other
hand, the question of whether or not the order of the trial
court of May 31, 1971 reviving the writ of possession dated
June 23, 1969 which declared definite the deed of sale in
favor of respondents has legal basis necessarily involves
the validity of the redemption made by petitioner. The trial
court must have found it indispensable to resolve that issue
in ruling on the right of possession which was being
pressed upon it with apparent urgency.
Under these peculiar circumstances and taking into
account that from what appears in the records of this case,
it is, in the mind of the Court, improbable that a different
conclusion will result if We should leave the main
controversy to be 2
determined in a final judgment in Civil
Case No. 62-T, in the interest of justice, the Court has
decided to put an end here and now to the quest of private
respondents for satisfaction of the judgment they had
secured in Civil Case No. 1666 against the estate of Nicolas
Rafols almost two decades ago by affirming the
intermediate court’s decision which is not without
substantial support in the evidence before it. After all,
petitioner stands to suffer no material loss in the premises
inasmuch as the P11,200 check which he delivered to the
sheriff is still just an unencashed check which he can get
back and cancel anytime, while the other alleged payments
amounting to P10,114.00 stated in the petition are, in strict
legal contemplation, irrelevant, assuming they have been
actually made, the same having taken place long after the
period for

_______________

1The only available information there is as to what happened with this

case is from a telegram of private respondents to the Chief Justice dated
December 18, 1974 to the effect that the same had been dismissed on
October 19, 1974.
2As stated in Footnote 1 hereof appears to have been already decided at
least in the same trial court in favor of respondents.

508

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

redemption had expired. If at all, these alleged payments

strongly imply that actually, in the mind of petitioner
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

himself, the check in question was not after all effective as

a redemption. Considerations of equity and justice compel
Us to overlook in this case the technical flaws in the
procedure observed both by the trial court and the Court of
Appeals, it being apparent to Us that to prolong this
litigation further would not alter its final outcome.
With respect to the point of jurisdiction raised by
petitioner in connection with the action of the trial court of
passing in Civil Case No. 1666 on the efficacy of the
redemption when that issue is precisely the subject of Civil
Case No. 62-T, We do not find petitioner’s contention to be
sufficiently well taken. Whether the validity of a
redemption of property sold under a judgment of a court
should be determined by the court that rendered the
judgment or by another court in a separate proceeding is
not actually a question of jurisdiction in its absolute sense.
Indeed, it is not juridically proper that the court that has
rendered the judgment should be exclusively deprived of
authority to clear up matters related to the ultimate
satisfaction thereof.
There is in fact no law categorically providing a
judgment debtor or a redemptioner or anyone acting in the
place of either of them must have to file a separate action
whenever his right to the property is not respected. The
jurisprudential rule to such effect is founded more on
convenience to avoid keeping open for an indefinite time
the case wherein the judgment has been rendered. Ideally,
a case should be deemed terminated insofar as the court
that has taken cognizance thereof is concerned the moment
the entry of satisfaction of judgment is made pursuant to
Section 46 of Rule 39. As a general rule, therefore, any
question that arises after such entry should be the subject
of another action, particularly when third parties become
involved. Obviously, the issues to be resolved in such
subsequent proceedings are usually bound to be different
from those of the main action. And with such new parties
and issues, it stands to reason that a new action in which
the regular course of procedure in actions may be observed
would serve the interests of justice better. But that is not to
say that the court that rendered the judgment would be
really acting without jurisdiction if it proceeds taking
cognizance of the controversy regarding the redemption
when it finds that more compelling
509

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 509

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

circumstances demand that it should so act, lest more

injustice might result from further delay in the final
resolution of the issue and after all, it is already obvious
that the ultimate result would inevitably be the same and,
moreover, due process has already been accorded to all
parties concerned.
Withal, it cannot be said that the court from which the
judgment proceeds is altogether excluded by the rules from
acting on matters subsequent to the execution sale, if only
because the sheriff who conducts the sale and to whom
payment of the redemption price may be made by virtue of
Section 31 of Rule 39 is under the supervision and control
of the court, and, accordingly, his acts in connection
therewith are proper subjects of direction, scrutiny and
correction when necessary, by the court, upon complaint or
reference to it by any of the parties. Then also, the
judgment debtor whose property has been the object of the
levy ordered by the court is not a stranger to the original
proceeding, and should he need protection in the
enforcement of his right of redemption it should be but
natural that the same court should have the authority to
grant him relief as long as everyone concerned is duly
heard before action is taken.
An analogous situation obtains in connection with the
inclusion or exclusion of properties in or from the inventory
submitted for the approval of the probate court in the
course of settlement of the estate of a deceased person. As a
general rule, questions of ownership of said properties
raised whether by third parties or by any of the heirs
contesting that of the estate or the deceased are said to be
outside of the jurisdiction of said court. Even so, the
Supreme Court has ruled that when the parties interested
in such issue are all heirs, it is optional to them to submit
to the probate court the question of title to property, and
when so submitted, said probate court may definitely pass
judgment thereon, the reason being that questions of
collation or advancement are generally inevitably involved
therein, and these are matters which are proper to be
passed upon in due course of administration. In Bernardo
vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-18148, February 28, 1963,
7 SCRA 367, the Court ruled thus:

“The petitioners-appellants contend that the appellate court erred

in not declaring that the probate court, having limited and special
jurisdiction, had generally no power to adjudicate title and erred
in applying the exception to the rule.

510

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

“In a line of decisions, this Court consistently held that as a

general rule, question as to title to property cannot be passed
upon on testate or intestate proceedings, (Bauermann v. Casas, 10
Phil. 386; Devese v. Arbes, 13 Phil. 274; Franco v. O’Brien, 13 Phil
359; Guzman v. Anog, 37 Phil. 71; Lunsod v. Ortega, 46 Phil. 644;
Ongsingco v. Tan & Borja, G.R. No. L-7635, July 25, 1955;
Raquial v. Anihan, G.R. No. L-4377, January 23, 1953; Mallari v.
Mallari, G.R. No. L-4656, February 23, 1953.) except where one of
the parties prays merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the
inventory of the property, in which case the probate court may
pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice to its final
determination in a separate action. (Garcia v. Garcia, 67 Phil.
353; Guingguing v. Abuton, 48 Phil. 144.) However, we have also
held that when the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased,
it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a question as
to title to property, and when so submitted, said probate court
may definitely pass judgment thereof (Pascual v. Pascual, 73 Phil.
561; Mañalac v. Ocampo, et al., 73 Phil. 661); and that with the
consent of the parties, matters affecting property under judicial
administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the
course of intestate proceeding, provided interests of third persons
are not prejudiced (Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 229, 232).
“In the light of this doctrine, may it be said correctly that the
trial court as well as the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the
power of the probate court in this case to adjudicate in the testate
proceedings, the question as to whether the properties herein
involved belong to the conjugal partnership of Eusebio Capili
and Hermogena Reyes, or to the deceased husband exclusively?
“At the outset, let it be clarified that the matter at issue is not
a question of jurisdiction, in the sense advanced by appellants
that the trial court had completely no authority to pass upon the
title to the lands in dispute, and that its decision on the subject is
null and void and does not bind even those who had invoked its
authority and submitted to its decision because, it is contended,
jurisdiction is a creature of law and parties to an action can not
vest, extend or broaden it. If appellants’ contention is correct,
then there can be no exception to the no-jurisdiction theory. But
as has been stated in the case of Cunanan v. Amparo (supra) the
Supreme Court speaking through Mr. Justice Pedro Tuason:
‘Determination of title to property is within the jurisdiction of
Courts of First Instance. The responding Soriano’s objection (that
the probate court lacked jurisdiction to order the delivery of the
possession of the lots to the estate) relates exclusively to the
procedure, which is distinct from jurisdiction. It affects only
personal rights to a mode of practice (the filing of an independent
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

ordinary action) which may be waived’. Strictly speaking, it is

more a question of jurisdiction over the person, not over the
subject matter, for the jurisdiction to try controversies between

511

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 511

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

heirs of a deceased person regarding the ownership of properties

alleged to belong to his estate, has been recognized to be vested in
probate courts. This is so because the purpose of an
administration proceeding is the liquidation of the estate and
distribution of the residue among the heirs and legatees.
Liquidation means determination of all the assets of the estate
and payment of all the debts and expenses. (Flores v. Flores, 48
Phil. 982.) Thereafter, distribution is made of the decedent’s
liquidated estate among the persons entitled to succeed him. The
proceeding is in the nature of an action of partition, in which each
party is required to bring into the mass whatever community
property he has in his possession. To this end, and as a necessary
corollary, the interested parties may introduce proofs relative to
the ownership of the properties in dispute. All the heirs who take
part in the distribution of the decedent’s estate are before the
court, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, in all matters and
incidents necessary to the complete settlement of such estate, so
long as no interests of third parties are affected. (Garcia vs.
Garcia, 67 Phil. 358, 355.)”

Similarly, in the case at bar, it was herein petitioner who

first submitted to the court in Civil Case No. 1666 a motion
to declare private respondents in contempt of said court
when the latter took possession of the subject property,
claiming that since the check for the redemption purported
to be exercised by the former was dishonored for lack of
funds, such redemption was null and void. It is true the
trial court at that time opined that the appropriate remedy
is a separate action and that following that observation
petitioner filed Civil Case No. 62-T, but when, during the
pendency of said separate case, petitioner was able to
regain possession of the property, the issue of possession
pressed by private respondents in Civil Case No. 1666
acquired a character of urgency, and inasmuch as anyway,
in the aborted contempt proceedings all the parties had
already been fully heard, the court in the latter case, which
is actually the same one having cognizance of Civil Case
62-T, must have realized that it would be best in the
interest of a more expeditious administration of justice and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

a more speedy disposition of the controversy to resolve the

urgent issue of possession by determining already in Civil
Case No. 1666 the basic question relative to the validity of
the redemption made by petitioner by means of the check
in dispute. It must be admitted that in a sense such a step
was inconsistent with the court’s prior pose about an
independent suit, apart from its being a deviation from the
general rule aforereferred to. The
512

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crystal vs. Court of Appeals

peculiar circumstances of this case, however, properly

justified the resort to the exception to said rule, for all the
parties in the two actions are exactly identical, the issues
and the evidence are also the same ones in both cases, and
even the court and the judge are one and the same, hence
no one could have been caught unaware by the result that
eventually developed. No one can complain that he has not
had his day in court in regard to the matter in dispute.
Petitioner tries to explain that the reason why the
motion of respondents to withdraw his check was denied by
the court was because the latter have not made an
accounting of the rents and profits they have received from
the property in question during the period of redemption as
required by Section 34 of Rule 39. Again, such explanation
cannot lend strength to the cause of petitioner. There is
nothing in the record to show that any “demand in writing”
was ever made upon respondents by either the petitioner or
the administrator of the estate of Nicolas Rafols from
whom said petitioner acquired the right of redemption for
“a written and verified statement of the amounts of the
rents and profits thus received” “before the expiration of
the time allowed for such redemption” as specifically
enjoined by that very provision of the rules being relied
upon by petitioner. From what can be gathered from the
record, even if there had been any step in this direction
taken by petitioner, the same came too late after the
redemption period to be of any legal significance.
As to the motion for contempt filed by petitioner, the
allegations whereof have been duly denied by the
respondents, the Court deems it unnecessary to resolve the
same, considering that anyway the restraining order
invoked is being ordered lifted in this decision and in their
answer to said motion, accompanied by affidavits and other
documents not impugned by petitioner, respondents deny
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
6/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 062

having entered the properties herein involved in violation

of said order. Resolving said motion would only make
difficult the healing of the wounds of controversy borne by
the parties.
WHEREFORE, the decision under review is affirmed.
The restraining order heretofore issued is ordered lifted. No
coats.

          Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, Fernandez and

Aquino JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.
513

VOL. 62, FEBRUARY 25, 1975 513

Litton vs. Castillo

Notes. Medium of payment.—In the absence of

agreement to the contrary, it is always understood that all
payment of obligation is to be made in legal tender. (Gomez
vs. Tabia, L-1826, Aug. 5, 1949).
The obligation of a contract to pay money is to pay that
which the law shall recognize as money when payment is to
be made. (Del Rosario vs. Sandico, L-867, Dec. 29, 1949).
Under the plain terms of RA 897, P.A.L. Title 60 §§ 34 et
seq., the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation must accept
back pay certificates issued under that act in payment of
indebtedness to it, whether or not the rate of income to it
from such certificates, after their acceptance, would so
reduce the corporation’s income as to imperil its chances of
investing other funds entrusted to it by law for investment
at higher yields. (Sabelino vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp.,
L-11790, Sept. 30, 1958).

————o0o————

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017297aebcd8ef63fc64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14