ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 122206   July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 122206. July 7, 1997.]

    SPOUSES RAFAEL Y. ARCEGA and TERESITA F. ARCEGA, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS (17th Division), and RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

    George L. Howard Law Office, for Petitioners.

    Norberto J . Quisumbing, Jr. for Private Respondent.

    SYNOPSIS


    This is a petition for review filed by herein petitioner spouses questioning the decision of herein respondent Court of Appeals in granting respondent bank’s petition for certiorari and declaring the Regional Trial Court’s decision null and void. Petitioners asserted that public respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion inasmuch as its decision lacks legal basis. Also, they averred that the RTC was correct in denying the respondent bank’s petition for the issuance of the writ of possession and in granting the writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order to prevent respondent bank and the sheriff from transferring the subject property to third persons, since the foreclosure sale and/or auction sale of the subject mortgaged property was null and void for there was no notice of posting or prior publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was unjustified. By defaulting on paying their loan and failing to redeem the subject property during the extended period granted by the bank, petitioner had no clear legal right to be protected by said writ. On the other hand, respondent Court of Appeals was correct in granting the petition for the issuance of writ of possession filed by the bank, for it has a better right to possess, as mandated under Section 7 of Act 3135 and Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Ruled of Court.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDY; WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ISSUANCE THEREOF; WHEN PROPER. — For the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction.

    2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; POSSESSES THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN ITS CONDUCT. —." . . (I)t was highly irregular for the respondent court to issue the questioned writ based merely on the document of sheriff’s certificate of posting. No other evidence, oral or documentary, was ever presented by the private respondents to fully substantiate their prayer for the injunctive relief. It is well-settled that a foreclosure proceeding enjoys the presumption of regularity in its conduct being an official business, and it is the defendants, herein private respondents, who have the burden of showing by convincing proof that the foreclosure proceeding is tainted with irregularity for them to be entitled to the writ prayed for."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; OWNERSHIP; THE PURCHASER IN A FORECLOSURE SALE IS ENTITLED TO THE POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY; CASE AT BAR. — Respondent bank’s right to possess the property is clear and is based on its right of ownership as a purchaser of the properties in the foreclosure sale to whom title has been conveyed. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 and Section 35 of Rule 39, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. The bank in this case has a better right to possess the subject property because of its title over the same.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    In June 1988, petitioners herein, the spouses Rafael and Teresita Arcega, obtained two loans amounting to P900,000.00 from respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). Said loan was secured by a real estate mortgage executed by the parties on April 10, 1989 on a 561-square-meter property with improvements covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 377692. 1 Petitioners paid a total of about P300,000.00 but later defaulted on their loan obligations.

    The bank foreclosed the mortgage on petitioners’ property and acquired the property at the public auction held on May 21, 1990 with the highest bid of P984,361.08. The Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale issued on the same day was duly registered with the Quezon City Register of Deeds on May 25, 1990.

    The spouses Arcega repeatedly communicated with respondent bank’s Assistant Vice-President Emily Sibulo Hayudini in connection with the status of the foreclosed property. 2 On May 23, 1991, two days before the expiration of the redemption period, Rafael Arcega wrote the bank for an extension of three weeks and informing it that he has applied for a housing loan 3 to refinance his loan account with RCBC. On May 25, 1991, petitioners’ counsel wrote respondent bank for a four-week extension within which to redeem the property. Four days later, respondent bank informed petitioners that their request for a three-week extension, until June 14, 1991, was granted. During all this time, petitioners raised no question regarding the regularity of the foreclosure sale and proceedings.

    On June 14, 1991, Assistant Vice-President Hayudini inquired through the telephone from Mr. Ching Hoe, Benefits Specialist of the Asian Development Bank about the status of Rafael Arcega’s loan. Mr. Hoe informed her that said loan application was canceled because Arcega was going to file a court case. Surprised at this development, after the expiration of the extended redemption period, respondent bank’s officers executed an Affidavit of Consolidation on June 17, 1991 to secure a new title in the name of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. T.C.T. No. 40782 was later issued in the bank’s name.

    It appears that on June 11, 1991, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 91-9055 against respondent bank for annulment of foreclosure and/or auction sale with restraining order/preliminary injunction/damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104. In said complaint, petitioner averred that they were not aware of the auction sale, that there was no notice of posting or prior publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law and that they protested the bank’s action pertinent to the foreclosure to no avail. The Notice of Lis Pendens was annotated on the title of the subject property on July 16, 1991.

    On November 23, 1993, the bank filed "In re: Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession" (LRC No. Q-6483(93)) with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

    On February 3, 1994 petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order to prevent respondent bank and Sheriff from transferring the subject property to third persons in the case at bar. After hearing and due consideration of the evidence submitted by the parties, on June 21, 1994, the Regional Trial Court issued its questioned Order granting the writ of a preliminary injunction. Respondent bank’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on August 1, 1994.

    On August 24, 1994, RCBC sought relief in the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari seeking the nullification of the trial court’s Orders dated June 21, 1994 and August 1, 1994. Respondent appellate court granted the petition on August 17, 1995 in a decision with the following dispositive portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED by this Court. The questioned Orders dated June 21, 1994 and August 1, 1994 of the respondent court, granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, and denying its reconsideration in Civil Case No. Q-91-9055 are declared null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On October 12, 1995, the motion for reconsideration filed by the Arcegas was denied by respondent court.

    Hence, the instant petition for review was filed seeking the annulment of the Court of Appeals’ decision for lack of legal basis and for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    On the sole question of whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion, we affirm respondent court’s decision and deny the instant petition.

    The issuance of the writ was unjustified, the spouses Arcega not having any legal right that merits protection by the court.

    For the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 4

    In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. 5 Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. 6 The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. 7

    The circumstances in the case at bar show that the Arcegas did not possess a clear legal right sought to be protected by said writ. Petitioners defaulted on their loan and failed to redeem the subject property during the extended period granted by the bank. It was only three days prior to the redemption period that petitioners decided to question the foreclosure proceedings, giving the impression that the case at bar is an afterthought or a last-ditch effort to save their property. Title to the property had already been transferred to the bank which now possesses a certificate of title in its name.

    Respondent bank’s right to possess the property is clear and is based on its right of ownership as a purchaser of the properties in the foreclosure sale to whom title has been conveyed. 8 Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 and Section 35 of Rule 39, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. 9 The bank in this case has a better right to possess the subject property because of its title over the same. 10

    Respondent appellate court added:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . (I)t was highly irregular for the respondent court to issue the questioned writ based merely on the document of sheriff’s certificate of posting. No other evidence, oral or documentary, was ever presented by the private respondents to fully substantiate their prayer for the injunctive relief. It is well-settled that a foreclosure proceeding enjoys the presumption of regularity in its conduct being an official business, and it is the defendants, herein private respondents, who have the burden of showing by convincing proof that the foreclosure proceeding is tainted with irregularity for them to be entitled to the writ prayed for." 11

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, where Civil Case No. 91-9055 is pending is directed to continue with the proceedings of said case and resolve the same with dispatch. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. The bank charged 19.5% per annum as interest rate on the loans which were payable in ten years.

    2. As of October 15, 1990, the Statement of Account amounted to P1,232,479.94, which amount included 33% interest for 143 days, attorney’s fees, sheriff’s fee, documentary stamps, etc.

    3. With the Asian Development Bank, where petitioner Rafael Arcega was employed.

    4. Syndicated Media Access Corporation v. CA, 219 SCRA 797 (March 11, 1993).

    5. Vinzons-Chato v. Natividad, 244 SCRA 787 (June 2, 1995).

    6. China Banking Corporation et. al. v. CA, G.R. No. 121158, December 5, 1996.

    7. Ulang v. CA, 225 SCRA 642 (August 29, 1993) citing Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. v. CFI Negros Occidental, 42 SCRA 577); Prado v. Veridiano II, 204 SCRA 654 (December 6, 1991).

    8. Philippine National Bank v. CA, 118 SCRA 110 (November 2, 1982).

    9. Javelosa v. CA, G.R. No. 124292, December 10, 1996.

    10. Persons with Torrens title over land are entitled to possession thereof Pangilinan v. Aguilar, 43 SCRA 136 (1972).

    11. Rollo, p. 38.

    G.R. No. 122206   July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED