Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > January 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19554 January 31, 1964 - PURIFICACION PASCUA v. HON. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19554. January 31, 1964.]

PURIFICACION PASCUA, Petitioner, v. HON. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL., Respondents.

Antonio V. Raquiza & Associates for Petitioner.

Oscar Y. Carsi Cruz for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENTS; ANNULMENT OF MORTGAGE SALE AND REDEMPTION BY MORTGAGOR; PERIOD FOR REDEMPTION MUST BE SET BY THE COURT. — Where no period was fixed by the lower court, either in the body of the decision or in its dispositive part, within which the mortgagor may redeem the property mortgaged and sold as a result of a usurious transaction, it is held that it was error for the lower court to have held that petitioner- mortgagor has failed to redeem the property within the period of one year from the date that the decision in the annulment case has become final.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REMEDY OF MORTGAGE UPON FAILURE OF MORTGAGOR TO PAY REDEMPTION PRICE. — Where the mortgagor at the time the motion was filed, was then the owner of the property in view of the annulment of the sale executed by the sheriff in favor of mortgagee in the annulment case instituted by the former against the latter, and what was ordered by the court a quo in said case was to allow mortgagor to redeem the property upon payment of the sum of P20,100.00 which is contrary to its decision annulling the deed of sale in favor of respondent, it is held that the most that respondent could do upon failure of petitioner to pay the above amount, was to ask for the execution of the decision, and not the vesting of title to the property in her, as the lower court did. The only right of mortgagee in the premises was merely to collect the amount of the loan, plus the interest due thereon, which can be effected by filing a motion for execution in the annulment case.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Purificacion Pascua mortgaged on December 13, 1956 two parcels of land in favor of Elisa Paraiso Vda. de Verzosa to secure a loan of P25,000.00 on condition that the mortgage may be redeemed within one year from said date. When Pascua failed to redeem the mortgage as stipulated, Verzosa took steps to foreclose it extra-judicially thru the sheriff of Manila. At the foreclosure sale Verzosa purchased the property for P35,000.00 and on May 8, 1959 the sheriff issued in her favor the corresponding certificate of sale. The sheriff fixed the expiration of the redemption period on April 29, 1959. When Verzosa tried to take possession of the property as a result of its sale in her favor, Pascua commenced an action before the Court of First Instance of Manila to annul the foreclosure sale on the ground that the mortgage was null and void because it involved a usurious transaction. On November 16, 1960, the court rendered decision finding the transaction to be usurious and annulling the sale made by the sheriff in favor of Verzosa. The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment annulling the deed of sale of the parcels of land in favor of defendant issued by the Sheriff and ordering the defendant Elisa Paraiso Vda. de Verzosa to allow plaintiff to redeem the two parcels of land in question upon payment of the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED P100.00) PESOS plus interest at the legal rate from the date of the sale until the redemption is made without pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Because of the failure of Pascua to redeem the property within the period of one year from the date of the receipt of the decision, Verzosa filed a motion on January 17, 1962 in the same case praying that, since Pascua failed to redeem the property as stated in the decision an order be issued vesting in her the title to the property and directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens that was annotated on the two titles covering the property. And acceding to the motion, over the opposition of Pascua, the court a quo issued on February 6, 1962 an order the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, as prayed for by defendant Vda. de Verzosa, the Court hereby declares that title to the properties mortgaged under the mortgage deed Exhibit `B’ is already vested in defendant Elisa P. Vda. de Verzosa and the Register of Deeds of Manila is hereby ordered, upon payment of the proper legal fees, to cancel the notice of lis pendens of this case appearing annotated on transfer certificates of title Nos. 60626 and 60627 of the land records of Manila."cralaw virtua1aw library

In due course, Pascua interposed the present petition for certiorari contending (1) that the court a quo erred in holding that Pascua failed to redeem the property within one year from the receipt of the decision in the annulment case, there being no legal and factual basis thereof; and (2) assuming that Pascua has incurred in such failure, the court a quo erred in vesting the title of the property in Verzosa without the corresponding appropriate action and without due process of law.

There is merit in the contention that the court a quo erred in holding that petitioner has failed to redeem the property within the period of one year from the date the decision in the annulment case has become final for there is indeed no such period fixed either in the body of said decision, nor in its dispositive part, as we have quoted elsewhere in this decision. Verily, that was the intention of the court when it allowed petitioner to redeem the property upon payment of the sum of P20,100.00, plus interest thereon from date of the sale until the redemption is made, but it overlooked to specify or mention the period within which the redemption should be effected. There being no such specification, it is unfair to hold petitioner delinquent in exercising the option given to her when the period for doing so is not stated. As a matter of fact, petitioner was of the impression that her right to redeem could be exercised within what she believed to be a reasonable period of time, and at the time the motion for vesting was filed in court she had almost completed negotiation to obtain the money with which she expected to effect the redemption.

Assuming that petitioner has been delinquent in exercising her option within the period which in the opinion of the court she should have exercised it, still we are of the opinion that the court a quo erred in vesting in respondent the title of the property outright without taking the necessary appropriate action for that purpose, or without due process of law, since petitioner, at the time the motion was filed, was then the owner of the property in view of the annulment of the sale executed by the sheriff in favor of respondent in the annulment case instituted by petitioner against Respondent. Note that what was ordered by the court a quo in said case was to allow petitioner to redeem the property upon payment of the sum of P20,100.00 which is contrary to its decision annulling the deed of sale in favor of Respondent. The most, therefore, that respondent could do upon failure of petitioner to pay the above amount, was to ask the execution of the decision, and not the vesting of title to the property in her, as the court did. The only right of respondent in the premises was merely to collect the amount of the loan, plus the interest due thereon, which can be effected by filing a motion for execution in the annulment case. This respondent can still do.

WHEREFORE, petition is granted. The order of respondent court dated February 6, 1962 is hereby set aside. Costs against respondent Verzosa.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17605 January 22, 1964 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18511 January 22, 1964 - IGNACIO VERDERA, ET AL v. JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15894 January 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-16490 January 30, 1964 - PANGASINAN TRANS. CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18345 January 30, 1964 - PAN-AM WORLD AIRWAYS v. PAA EMPLOYEES’ ASSO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18506 January 30, 1964 - IN RE: AO LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18516 January 30, 1964 - IN RE: YAP CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18521 January 30, 1964 - IN RE: KWAN KWOCK HOW v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18611 January 30, 1964 - CITY LUMBER, INC. v. HON. MELECIO R. DOMINGO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18776 January 30, 1964 - URBANO SAPICO, ET AL. v. MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19377 January 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19850 January 30, 1964 - VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20416 January 30, 1964 - JUAN N. EVANGELISTA, ET AL v. HON. LUIS B. REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14941 January 31, 1964 - NATALIO VENTOSA v. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15027 January 31, 1964 - IN RE: JIMMY LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15334 January 31, 1964 - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

  • G.R. No. 15460 January 31, 1974

    PEDRO SAN DIEGO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-15645 January 31, 1964 - PAZ P. ARRIETA, ET AL v. NATIONAL RICE & CORN CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-16349 January 31, 1964 - VICENTE J. FRANCISCO v. AUREA MATIAS

  • G.R. No. L-16896 January 31, 1964 - CATALINA B. ALBERCA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INST. FOR WOMEN

  • G.R. No. L-17749 January 31, 1964 - VICENTE TAMAYO v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17871 January 31, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18071-72 January 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO INDIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18236 January 31, 1964 - ANGEL ESLER v. DOMINGO ELLAMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18237 January 31, 1964 - IRINEO V. BERNARDO v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18291 January 31, 1964 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO. INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-18482 January 31, 1964 - MARIA ROA v. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18510 January 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO M. SABBUN

  • G.R. No. L-18583 January 31, 1964 - VICENTE D. SARMIENTO v. HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18773 January 31, 1964 - CMS ESTATE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18788 January 31, 1964 - ROMULO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. LUIS GONZAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18885 January 31, 1964 - CHIENG YEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19064 January 31, 1964 - IN RE: PAZ E. SIGUION TORRES v. CONCHITA TORRES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19065 January 31, 1964 - MANUELA ADVINCULA v. MANUEL ADVINCULA

  • G.R. No. L-19420 January 31, 1964 - PHIL. ASSO. OF FREE LABOR UNION, ET AL v. SERGIO BOGNOT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19554 January 31, 1964 - PURIFICACION PASCUA v. HON. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19631 January 31, 1964 - PASTOR D. AGO v. HON. TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19742 January 31, 1964 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19745 January 31, 1964 - ELISEO FLORA, ET AL. v. VICENTE OXIMANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19782 January 31, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19881 January 31, 1964 - ALFREDO CERBO v. HON, GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20025 January 31, 1964 - FAUSTINO CUNETA v. MANUEL CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20242 January 31, 1964 - FRANCISCO ALLAM, ET AL. v. VALENTINA ACOSTA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20741 January 31, 1964 - SOCORRO A. GILLERA v. CORAZON FERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21399 January 31, 1964 - VILLA-REY TRANSIT, INC. v. HON. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.