Plaintiff, Domingo Etcuban and his ten siblings inherited a parcel of land from

their deceased father, Eleuterio Etcuban. They were declared co-owners of the
subject property in a dispute filed before CFI Cebu.

Thereafter the 11 co-heirs executed their respective Deeds of Sale in favor of

private respondents Jesus and Guadalupe Songalia over their respective shares
in the co-ownership.

Plaintiff assailed the conveyances made by his siblings because he was not
given due notice as a co-owner despite having previously informed them of his
willingness and interest to buy all their respective shares.

It was only during the hearing on Jan 31, 1972 in Civil Case No. BN-87 entitled
Jesus Songolia vs. Domingo Etcuban before the CFI of Cebu that he learned for
the first time of the existence of the 11 Deeds of Sale. Upon verification, only 3 of
his siblings admitting their respective sales. Thus, petitioner filed an action for
legal redemption docketed as Civil Case No. BN 109. On the other hand, private
respondents assert the legality of the sale by claiming that the provisions of the
law on legal redemption have been complied with.

Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff may exercise his right of redemption over the
subject property.

Held: No. Plaintiff cannot exercise his right of redemption.

Art. 1623 of the Civil Code provides x x x

Respondent Eusebio Bernabe is a judgment debtor of judgment creditor Enrique
de Leon in a case filed before the Court of Judge Fernando Cruz of the CFI of
Rizal, Caloocan City. After the judgment issued by the court against respondent
became final and executory, execution of the judgment followed. Two parcels of
lands belonging to respondent was levied and sold at public auction on Feb 14,
1967. Aurora de Leon, sister of judgment creditor Enrique de Leon was the
highest bidder and after the expiration of the redeption period, the Court
ordered the consolidation of ownership of the properties in petitioner De Leons
name and the surrender by respondent of his owners duplicate certificates of
title to the properties sold to petitioner de Leon.

Respondent subsequently filed an action to annul the execution sale for

alleged irregularities before another branch of CFI, Caloocan City presided by
Judge Salvador. On Dec. 28, 1970, the High Cort rendered its joint decision in
Cases :-30871 and L-31603 involving the same parties wherein the decisive issue
of conflict of jurisdiction between two branches of the Caloocan City Court of
First Instance was stated thus: . Which court, Branch X11 presided by Judge
Cruz or Br XIV presided by Judge Salvador has exclusive jurisdiction to aside for
alleged irregularities the execution sale held on Feb. 14, 1967 by virtue of the
writ for the execution of the fial judgment in the first issued issued by Judge
Cruzcourt and to order a new auction sale which was the relief sought by the
judgment debtor in the second case in Judge Salvadors court?

The High Court sustained the exclusive jurisdiction of Judge Cruzs court,
holding that exclusive jurisdiction was vested in Judge Cruzs court. Having
acquired jurisdiction over the first case and rendered judgment that had become
final and executory, it retained jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of
all other coordinate courts for its execution and incidents thereof. Consequently,
the High Court upheld the validity of the execution sale held on Feb 14, 1967.

Unrelenting, respondent Bernabe filed another action against petitioner

Aurora de Leon for annulment or declaration of nullity of thejudgment rendered
against him in the first case presided by Judge Cruz at the execution sale of which
petitioner de Leon ad acquired his properties in question on the ground that the
judgment rendered in the first case which led to the execution and sale of his
properties, was null and void because the same was secured by Enrique de Leon,
the judgment creditor, thru frauc, deceit and misrepresentation in that his
signatures appearing in the lease contract on which his complaint was founded,
and in the verification of said complaint, were both falsified by his father,
Enrique de Leon, Sr. In view of this second action filed by respondent, Judge
Cruz ordered the parties to refrain from taking any further action of the
properties of Eusebio Bernabe, to preserve the status quo between the parties.
 Thus, petitioner Aurora de Leon filed the instance petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus. Finally, the High Court held that respondent, Judge
Cruz acted with grave abuse of discretion. It declared that the implementation of
execution proceedings already performed in satisfaction of a judgment and
earlier sustained by final judgment of the High Court will not be enjoined, simply
because of the filing by the judgment debor of a new action for annulment of the
executed judgment on the ground of fraud, because the presumption is that such
judgment was legally and validly rendered. This is doubly true where as in this
case respondent Bernabe has already failed in a previous action to annul the
execution sale and the High Court sustained the validty of such sale in a final
judgment rendered over three years earlier.