Court of Appeals Judgement

I'm just new to the forum and badly need a atty. advice. Please help me since I felt even our lawyer is not helping at all and on the other side. We just receive a court of appeals judgment ordering us to vacate the house we are currently live in. To start the story we bought this land to a the first owner. We just recently fully paid the house in the name still of the first buyer. We are just waiting for the transfer of title on our name. Our problem is we are ordered to vacate, since the time we file for appeal we still haven't paid the whole amount of the house and lot and no title to prove that the land is fully owned by my family. Our lawyer also failed to inform us that court required as to appear within 5 days after received of notice. Our lawyer even said we should just vacate but we can't do that since we are buyer of good faith and paid the property in whole. Please what options can we do? Please help thank you.

chloe, i will try to give advice even if you are represented by counsel since you feel he has been neglectful. but please note that normally this is an unethical act for us.

please clarify what kind of case was filed. was it for ejectment?

you mention that there is a first owner and a first buyer. is this a case where the owner sold the property to two parties?

what do you mean that you paid for the property in the name of the first buyer? don't you have a contract with the owner of the property?

did the trial court declare you in default?

Is the property covered by a title? In whose name is it and who has possession of the the owner's original duplicate?

who is the defendant named in the case? is it you or some other person from whom you purchased the property?

please give a more detailed account of what happened, how you came to purchase the property, how the conflict arose, and how the case began and progressed.

If this is a judgment, you have 15 days from the date of receipt (technically by your lawyer) to file a Motion for Reconsideration and prevent the judgment from becoming final. If you are not confident in your lawyer, you should try to find one asap. time is short particularly when this case is already in the Court of Appeals.

Forcible entry was the case. Possession of the house was given to them but the court impose that the ownership is not decided. First owner and my mom bought the house in good faith. The other parties claiming that they bought the house and lot to the First owner. This one totally denied by the 1st owner. We even have it check in National Home Mortgage to make sure we are buying a property that is clear. Deed of Sale Assumption of Mortgage between the owner and mom since 2003. We have a deed of sale now from the owner with full payment. To make it easy to get the property we will just transfer the name of the title to us after it was titled to the 1st owner name. We are currently just waiting for the title from NHMFC. I dont understand what you mean if trial court declare as default? Can you explain it further? We just recently paid it in whole amount with National Home Mortgage in name after the 1st owner still new deed of sale with full payment made between 1st owner and mom. Title still with the National Home Mortgage. The case was against my mom and agent. The 1st owner was not included in the case because I didn't see the term et. al in the case. There were someone occupying the possession before us. It was rented out to another person by the complainant. The renter of house agreed to vacate the house that's the only time my mom and family enter the house we bought. Can we file motion for reconsideration even we don't have the title of the land on my mom name yet the title is still with first owner currently in process of transferring it to his name by National Home Mortgage?Thank you.

Please correct me if I misunderstood the facts you are conveying.

There is a property which was owned or at least purchased by Owner A. He had a loan with Pag-Ibig and the property was mortgaged. Or was the property being paid for in installments, where title to the property would be transferred to the buyer only upon full payment?

In 2003, your mother decided to purchase Owner A's rights over the property, probably by giving a downpayment and assuming the responsibility of payment of the monthly amortizations, but no formal transfer of the loan was made.

The property was under possession of a lessee who moved out after you told him that you are now the owner. The lessee said that he was renting from Owner B.

After the lessee left, you occupied the property, and Owner B filed a case against your mother based on forcible entry.

Now, the Court of Appeals has already ruled on your appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, and you have been ordered to vacate the premises.

Are you sure it was the Court of Appeals which issued the judgment you received, or it was the appeal to the Regional Trial Court after the MTC decided the case originally?

An ejectment case is not supposed to resolve the issue of ownership, only who has the better right between the parties to possess the property. If ownership is raised, the court may pass upon this question, but only to decide on the right of possession.

You have raised ownership as a defense, but still the case was decided against you. Apparently, the courts have decided that, based on the evidence submitted, it is Owner B who has the better right to possess the property.

Owner B claims that he bought the property from Owner A, although Owner A denies this. Was Owner B able to show any document to show that the property was sold to him? What document did you have to show that the property was sold by Owner A to your mom?

I'm afraid I cannot agree that your mother is an innocent purchaser for value because of the ff:

1) the property was not in the possession of the Owner A at the time you bought the property. it was in the possession of a lessee of Owner B. it was incumbent upon you to investigate this matter and determine from the lessee why he was there.

2) the property does not seem to be fully owned by Owner A in the first place at the time that you bought it, if you are saying that NHMFC will issue a title in his name.

3) it does not seem that NHMFC agreed that the rights to the property will be transferred to your mother's name because you are still paying in the name of the first owner. if this was purely voluntary on your part for convenience, I do not believe this was a wise way to purchase the property.

I am not saying that Owner B automatically has better right of possession, but if he has a notarized deed of transfer of rights signed by Owner A, then that may have been the basis for the court's judgment. it would then appear that Owner A sold his rights over the property to Owner B before Owner A sold his rights to you.

the legal principle that may be followed in double sale is that: first in time has better right. this is the extent of what I can say given that I am not able to review the entire record of the case.

regarding default, you mentioned that you were unable to appear after 5 days. this gives me the idea that your mother was not able to file an answer to the ejectment complaint and she was declared in default and the case was decided based purely on the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

your lawyer, whether the old or a new one, would be best in position to say how to prepare a Motion for Reconsideration. I must say, however, that it is very difficult given that the case has already been reviewed by the MTC, RTC and now the CA. good luck!

Yes the case was decide in mtc and rtc. It is just affirmed by the CA. What shall we do then aside from motion for reconsideration? The first owner now is fully paid in NHMFC the ownership of the land would be entitled to him. We paid the house already in his name but for assurance we did a new deed of sale on my parents behalf. We can't back out on the property given it was also cleared by the NHMFC itself to release for title meaning no other people could claim the title aside from Owner A. We paid a great amount for this property can the law protect the owner a if ever since he was not included in the case just my mom and agent. We rather have Owner A stay in the house rather surrendered the house to the court's decision to return it to the other party. What would happen if we do this? Thank you for your fast reply.

Ask the NHMFC if there is any way that the title be issued in your name. This should be easier because the property is now fully paid. It would be just a transfer of Owner A's rights to you. you'll have greater leverage and assurance that you will be, at the minimum, reimbursed for your payments to the NHMFC if the title is issued in your name.

If your lawyer was handling the case from the beginning, then I have to applaud that he has been able to fend off execution all this time. Your eviction could have been done immediately after the MTC case was decided. Did you put up a bond and deposit monthly rentals to the court?

You should focus first on the MR right now, good luck.time is running.