CASE DIGEST : Tan, Jr. v. CA

 G.R. No. 136368            January 16, 2002

JAIME TAN, JR., as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Jaime C. Tan, petitioner, 

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Ninth Special Div.) and JOSE A. MAGDANGAL and ESTRELLA MAGDANGAL, respondents.

 FACTS: This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 15, 19981 and its Resolution dated November 9, 19982 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP-41738. The Magdangals appealed to the Supreme Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 33657. In a decision promulgated on September 28, 1995, The Supreme Court, thru its then Special Third Division, affirmed in toto the appealed decision of the lower court. On March 13, 1996, the Clerk of Supreme Court entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment the Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 33657 and issued the corresponding Entry of Judgment which, on its face, stated that the said Decision 'has on October 21, 1995 become final and executory. On March 21, 1996, the Magdangals filed in the lower court a MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND WRIT OF POSSESSION. In opposition to this motion Tan, Jr. alleged, among other things, that until an entry of judgment has been issued by the Court of Appeals and copy thereof furnished the parties, the appealed decision of the court a quo in this case cannot be considered final and executory. In a related move, Tan, Jr. filed on April 16, 1996, a MANIFESTATION AND MOTION. Jointly acting on the aforementioned MOTON FOR CONSOLIDATION AND WRIT OF POSSESION of the Magdangals, MANIFESTATION AND MOTION of Tan, Jr., the court a quo presided by the respondent judge, came out with the first challenged order of June 10, 1996. On September 28, 1995 in CA-G.R. CV No. 33657, the Special Third Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. On March 13, 1996, the clerk of court of the appellate court entered in the Book of Entries of Judgement the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 33657 and issued the corresponding Entry of Judgment which, on its face, stated that the said decision "has on October 21, 1995 become final and executory." The respondents Magdangal filed in the trial court a Motion for Consolidation and Writ of Possession. They alleged that the 120-day period of redemption of the petitioner has expired. On June 10, 1996, the trial court allowed the petitioner to redeem the lot in question. It ruled that the 120-day redemption period should be reckoned from the date of Entry of Judgment in the appellate court or from March 13, 1996.9 The redemption price was deposited on April 17, 1996. As aforestated, the Court of Appeals set aside the ruling of the trial court.

ISSUE: WON the Rules of Court Should be given retroactive effect

HELD: The Supreme Court held that section 1 Rule 39 should not be given retroactive effect. As a General Rule The rules of court should be given effect. however, It has well-delineated exceptions. The rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending proceedings would impair vested rights. Courts may deny the retroactive application of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice. Petitioner fought to recover this lot from 1988. To lose it because of a change of procedure on the date of reckoning of the period of redemption is inequitous.