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. 119184   July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 119184. July 21, 1997.]

    THE HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE namely: SURVIVING SPOUSE MARCELINO and children MARIANO, LEONILO, PERFECTA, MEXIQUELA, EMILIO, MARCELINO JR., ALEJANDRO, the Heirs of JESUS and ADRIANO, all surnamed CANQUE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, THE RURAL BANK OF MATANAO (DAVAO DEL SUR), INC. and/or CONRADO ANTONIO, Respondents.

    Leonardo D. Suario for Petitioners.

    Goc-Ong & Associates for Private Respondents.

    SYNOPSIS


    On October 12, 1977, the spouses Canque obtained a loan of P15,000.00 from defendant rural bank secured by a real estate mortgage over their parcel of land. This loan was duly paid. After the death of the wife, or on March 7, 1990, the husband secured another loan from defendant rural bank for P25,000.00. This second loan not having been paid, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage and sold the property at the auction sale with the bank as the highest bidder. On September 9, 1983, the sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered; on October 18, 1985, an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and a deed of absolute sale were executed, and on December 23, 1995, a new title was issued in the name of the bank. After seven years from the registration of the certificate of sale, the husband and his children offered to redeem the property but the bank refused. Thus, they filed a complaint on September 7, 1990 to compel the bank to allow them to repurchase their land.

    The trial court allowed the husband and his children to exercise their right of redemption commencing on October 18, 1995, the date they executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and deed of absolute sale. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the right of redemption should be reckoned from September 9, 1983, the date of the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale. Since the complaint was filed only on September 7, 1990, or almost seven (7) years from the registration of the certificate of sale, the five-year prescriptive period had already prescribed.

    The Supreme Court ruled that under the Public Land Act, the petitioners, husband and children, had a period of two (2) years from September 9, 1983, the date of registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale, or until September 9, 1985 to exercise their right of redemption, and an additional period of five (5) years from September 9, 1985 or until September 9, 1990 within which to exercise their right to repurchase. Petitioners’ right to redeem their land had not expired on September 7, 1990 when they filed the complaint against the respondent rural bank.

    Petition granted and judgment set aside.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CIVIL LAW; PUBLIC LAND ACT; MORTGAGE OF LAND COVERED BY FREE PATENT; EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE; SEVEN (7) YEARS PERIOD OF REDEMPTION; CASE AT BAR. — This Court reiterates the dictum that the mortgagor of titled real estate acquired under the Public Land Act but foreclosed by a rural bank, may redeem said property within two (2) years from the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale; and if the said mortgagor fails to exercise such right, he or his heirs may still purchase the land within five years from the expiration of the two-year redemption period. (Rural Bank of Davao City v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 569 [January 27, 1993]) In the case at bar, the Sheriff’s" "Certificate of Sale was registered on September 9, 1983. Thus, based on the foregoing dictum, the petitioners, whose land was mortgaged to and foreclosed by a rural bank, had a period of two years or until September 9, 1985 to exercise their right of redemption. And in line with the mandate of Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act, they had an additional period of five years from the latter date or until September 9, 1990 to exercise their right to repurchase. Thus, the petitioners’ right to redeem their land had not expired on September 7, 1990 when they filed suit against private respondent to compel the latter to allow the former to repurchase their land. In sum, we rule that the disposition of the Regional Trial Court allowing the redemption is correct although for a different reason, and that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to add the two-year redemption period to the five-year repurchase right granted by the Public Land Act.

    2. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS; ENJOINED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT. — Clearly, the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error because it palpably failed to consider in its August 25, 1994 Decision the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Court promulgated twenty months earlier on January 27, 1993. Unfortunately, this is not the first time for this Court to come upon such a slip. Peltan Development v. Court of Appeals ruled that "every court must take cognizance of decisions this Court has rendered because they are proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice . . . [and] more importantly form part of the legal system." We stress that members of the bench have a responsibility to know and to apply the latest holdings of the Supreme Court. The nature of their calling requires no less.

    3. ID.; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — Whether the mortgage which the Canque spouses contracted with private respondent bank was intended by the parties to be a continuing one, a factual issue passed upon sub-silencio by the Court of Appeals, had been threshed out by the trial court. The trial court held that the parties did contemplate a continuing credit arrangement. In this issue, we defer to the well-entrenched doctrine that "factual findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has overlooked or ignored some fact or circumstance of sufficient weight or significance which, if considered, would alter the situation." After a thorough review of this case, the Court finds both lower courts did not overlook any such fact or circumstance. Hence, their factual finding as to the parties’ intention in entering into a real mortgage under a continuing credit/mortgage arrangement is binding upon this Court. In any event, this issue is really academic in view of our holding on the first question.


    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    In deciding this appeal, this Court reiterates the dictum that the mortgagor of titled real estate acquired under the Public Land Act but foreclosed by a rural bank, may redeem said property within two (2) years from the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale; and if the said mortgagor fails to exercise such right, he or his heirs may still repurchase the land within five years from the expiration of the two-year redemption period. It also finds occasion to remind lower courts to keep abreast of decisions of this Court and apply them in resolving identical cases before them.

    Statement of the Case

    This is a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking annulment of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 promulgated on August 25, 1994 in CA-G.R. CV No. 39807, reversing the trial court’s 3 decision. 4 The latter tribunal disposed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the court hereby decrees: amending in part the partial judgment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1.) Allowing the plaintiff to redeem the mortgaged properties by paying the amount of the purchase price with interest thereon at the rate of one per centum per month up to the date of her deposit of the redemption price and ordering the defendant to accept payment from the plaintiff;

    2.) Dismissing all the claims and counterclaims that the parties may have against each other in connection with this case.

    SO ORDERED. "5

    The Antecedent Facts

    The facts as found by the Respondent Court of Appeals appear undisputed. They are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Spouses Marcelino Canque and Felicidad Canque were the registered owners of a parcel of land under Original Certificate of Title No. P-(20559)-3409, of the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur issued by virtue of Free Patent No. 40336, with an area of 2 hectares, 43 ares, and 58 centares. On May 21, 1976, said spouses sold a portion of the parcel of land to the Iglesia ni Kristo Church to the extent of 750 square meters. A new Transfer of Title No. T-8730 was issued to said spouses by the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur. On October 12, 1977, said spouses obtained a loan of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) from defendant bank secured by a real estate mortgage over the parcel of land under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8730 with an area of 23,608 square meters.

    The spouses’ loan of P15,000.00 with the defendant bank was duly paid.

    On February 2, 1980, Felicidad Canque passed away. More than a month later, on March 7, 1980, widower Marcelino Canque obtained by himself, another loan with defendant bank in the amount of P25,000.00 with the same conjugal property under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8730 as collateral. The defendant bank allegedly considered this second loan as an extension of the first loan as the real estate mortgage of the first loan had remained uncancelled, despite the earlier payment of the first loan by the said spouses.

    For failure of Marcelino Canque to pay the second loan, defendant bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage and sold the property to itself as the highest bidder in a public sale.

    On September 9, 1983, the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was registered. On October 18, 1985, defendants executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and deed of absolute sale. On December 23, 1985, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18357 was issued in the name of defendant bank by the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur.

    After seven years from the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale, plaintiffs Marcelino Canque and his children offered to redeem the property in question but defendant bank refused. Hence, the complaint filed before the lower court on September 7, 1990.

    After hearing on the merits, the lower court first issued a partial judgment on January 8, 1992, the decretal portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘WHEREFORE, partial judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Declaring the real estate mortgage between the plaintiffs and defendants valid; and

    2. Allowing the plaintiffs to exercise their right of redemption and/or repurchase pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 119, of Commonwealth Act 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act.’

    (p 5, Partial Dec.;

    p. 74, Orig. Rec.)

    On August 24, 1992, the lower court issued the earlier stated amended decision.

    Dissatisfied with the verdict of the lower court plaintiffs appealed to the Court [of Appeals].

    The principal issue posed in this appeal is whether or not the lower court erred in ruling that plaintiff Mario Canque’s right of redemption as well as that of the other plaintiffs-appellees, heirs of Felicidad Canque, has not prescribed.

    In the case of Achuelo v. IAC, 147 SCRA 434, the Supreme Court reiterated the express provision of law as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141 states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘Every reconveyance of land acquired under the free patent homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of conveyance.’

    In the case of Eastman Chemical Industries, Inc. v. C.A., 174 SCRA 619, the Supreme Court made the following pronouncement:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘In the case of Reyes v. Noblejas and Santos (G.R. No. L-23691, November 25, 1967, 21 SCRA 1027 at pp. 1029-1030) the Supreme Court upheld the contention of the Land Registration Commission, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘. . . Section 6 of Act 3135 should be applied to the present case together with: (1) Sections 30 to 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court with regard to redemption; (2) Section 27, Rule 39 of the said Rules and Section 71 of Act 496 with regard to the filing (registration) of the sheriffs certificate of sale; and (3) Section 50 of Act 496, with regard to the registration of the certificate of sale so as to consider the land conveyed and affected under the Land Registration Act.

    and that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘. . . . Section 27, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the certificate of sale executed by the sheriff in a public auction sale must be filed (registered) in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province where the land is situated. This is mandatory requirement. Failure to register the certificate of sale violates the said provision of law and, construed in relation with Section 50 of the Land Registration Law (Act 496), shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land covered by a torrens title because ‘the act of registration is the operative act to convey and effect the land.’ So the redemption period, for purposes of determining the time when a final deed of sale may be executed or issued and the ownership of the registered land consolidated in the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Act 3135, should be reckoned from the date of registration of the certificate of sale in the office of the register of deeds concerned and not from the date of the public auction sale. . . .’ (Emphasis supplied)" 6

    The respondent appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s decision, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Clearly, the lower court erred in ruling that plaintiffs-appellees’ redemption period commenced on October 18, 1985, date of defendants-appellants execution of an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and deed of absolute sale. The correct date to reckon with the start of the plaintiffs-appellees’ prescriptive period of five years is September 9, 1983, the date of the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale. Plaintiffs-appellees’ instant suit to compel defendants-appellees to allow them to redeem the property was only filed on September 7, 1990, or almost seven (7) years from the registration of the Sheriff’s certificate of sale, or beyond the five-year prescriptive period as provided under Sec. 119 of Commonwealth Act 141. Thus, plaintiffs-appellees’ right of redemption had already prescribed.

    All is not lost, however for the plaintiffs-appellees as heirs of Felicidad Canque for the lost right of redemption of the parcel of land in question only applies to the conjugal share of 50% of plaintiff Marcelino Canque considering that at the time the second loan of P25,000.00 was entered by said plaintiff with defendant bank, his spouse Felicidad Canque, who had a share of the other 50% of the conjugal property, had already passed away (Art. 185, New Civil Code). Thus, when plaintiff Mario Canque entered into the said loan agreement with defendant bank giving the parcel of land in question as security in the form of real estate mortgage, it was only valid insofar as his 50% of the conjugal property share from the said parcel of land is concerned. Defendant-appellant bank had acquired, therefore, no right over the other 50% of the conjugal property pertaining to the late Felicidad Canque which share of 50% automatically passed to her heirs, herein plaintiffs-appellees from the moment of her (Felicidad Canque) death (Art. 777, New Civil Code)." 7

    Hence, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment, the decretal portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the lower court in Civil Case No. 2688 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered by the Court as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Plaintiff-appellee Mario Canque’s right of redemption insofar as 50% of the property in question has already prescribed, and defendant-appellant bank’s title and ownership of the said 50% of the property are declared incontrovertible by the Court (of Appeals).

    2. Declaring the second deed of real estate mortgage over the parcel of land in question insofar as 50% of it is concerned as void as it pertained to the conjugal share of the late Felicidad Canque which share of 50% should rightfully pass to her heirs, herein Plaintiffs-Appellees.

    3. Ordering the Register of Deeds of the province of Davao Del Sur to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18357 and to issue two new Transfer Certificates of Title, one to plaintiffs-appellees under the name ‘Heirs of Felicidad Canque, and another one to the Rural Bank of Matanao, Inc. at 50% each of the property in question covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18357.

    4. Dismissing all claims and counterclaims of the parties against each other in this case.

    5. No costs.

    IT IS SO ORDERED." 8

    Not satisfied with the above, petitioner filed this recourse to this Court.

    The Issues


    Petitioners submit the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I The Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in holding that the period to repurchase of foreclosed lands issued thru free patent by Rural Banks is only five (5) years.

    II The Court of Appeals erred in not passing upon the issue of whether or not the Real Estate Mortgage is a continuing mortgage so as to also secure future loans by the husband after the death of the wife." 9

    The Court’s Ruling


    The petition is meritorious.

    First Issue: Prescriptive Period to Repurchase

    In Rural Bank of Davao City v. Court of Appeals, 10 this Court through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. explicitly and cogently ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . If the land is mortgaged to a rural bank under R. A. No. 720, as amended, the mortgagor may redeem the property within two (2) years from the date of foreclosure or from the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale at such foreclosure if the property is not covered or is covered, respectively, by a Torrens title. If the mortgagor fails to exercise such right, he or his heirs may still repurchase the property within five (5) years from the expiration of the two (2) year redemption period pursuant to Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141). If the land is mortgaged to parties other than rural banks, the mortgagor may redeem the property within one (1) year from the registration of the certificate of sale pursuant to Act No. 3135. If he fails to do so, he or his heirs may repurchase the property within five (5) years from the expiration of the redemption period also pursuant to Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case at bar, the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was registered on September 9, 1983. Thus, based on the foregoing dictum, the petitioners, whose land was mortgaged to and foreclosed by a rural bank, had a period of two years or until September 9, 1985 to exercise their right of redemption. And in line with the mandate of Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act, they had an additional period of five years from the latter date or until September 9, 1990 to exercise their right to repurchase. Thus, the petitioners’ right to redeem their land had not expired on September 7, 1990 when they filed suit against private respondent to compel the latter to allow the former to repurchase their land.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    Clearly, the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error because it palpably failed to consider in its August 25, 1994 Decision the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Court promulgated twenty months earlier on January 27, 1993. Unfortunately, this is not the first time for this Court to come upon such a slip. Peltan Development v. Court of Appeals 11 ruled that "every court must take cognizance of decisions this Court has rendered because they are proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice . . . [and] more importantly form part of the legal system." We stress that members of the bench have a responsibility to know and to apply the latest holdings of the Supreme Court. The nature of their calling requires no less.

    Second Issue: Factual Finding of Continuing Mortgage

    Whether the mortgage which the Canque spouses contracted with private respondent bank was intended by the parties to be a continuing one, a factual issue passed upon sub-silencio by the Court of Appeals, had been threshed out by the trial court. Finding that the parties did contemplate a continuing credit arrangement, the trial court aptly reasoned:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If it were not indeed the intention of the parties that (the property) mortgaged shall serve as a continuing security not only for the first loan of P15,000.00 but also for subsequent loans, the natural thing for the mortgagor to have done under the premises was to ask for the return of the title covering the property mortgaged to the defendant and consequently ask for the discharge and/or cancellation of the annotation on the title.

    These the plaintiff did not do, as then, it was their intention to avail of subsequent loans from defendants. Besides, the alleged full payment of the first loan of P15,000.00 was not clearly shown to have caused the discharge and/or cancellation of the real estate mortgage constituted therefor. The (trial court) believes that the full payment alleged is a situation obtaining in a continuing credit secured by mortgage whereby the payment on a particular day equalled the amount of the mortgage. In such a situation, the mortgage is not discharged as long as subsequent loans and/or advancements may be demanded, as plaintiff actually did in this case by obtaining the second loan of P25,000.00.

    The argument of plaintiffs that the surviving spouse, Marcelino Canque cannot mortgage the property to secure the loan of P25,000.00 because his wife had died and therefore he was not the absolute owner of the mortgaged property, must fall as it was not convincingly shown that the defendants had knowledge of the wife’s death at the time the loan of P25,000.00 was obtained.

    Lastly, it is indeed absurd for the defendant bank, considering the nature of its business, not to require collateral for the loan of P25,000.00 when it did for the lesser loan of P15,000.00.

    The fact is, and this the (trial court) believes, plaintiffs and defendants had agreed to have a continuing credit arrangement secured by a real estate mortgage. With this arrangement, plaintiffs first secured the loan of P15,000.00 and after liquidation thereof, they obtained another loan of P25,000.00 with the same property as collateral." 12

    In this issue, we "defer to the well-entrenched doctrine that factual findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has overlooked or ignored some fact or circumstance of sufficient weight or significance which, if considered, would alter the situation.’’ 13 After a thorough review of this case, the Court finds both lower courts did not overlook any such fact or circumstance. Hence, their factual finding as to the parties’ intention in entering into a real mortgage under a continuing credit/mortgage arrangement is binding upon this Court. In any event, this issue is really academic in view of our holding on the first question.

    In sum, we rule that the disposition of the Regional Trial Court allowing the redemption is correct although for a different reason, and that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to add the two-year redemption period to the five-year repurchase right granted by the Public Land Act.

    WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Respondent Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur in Civil Case No. 2688 allowing petitioner to redeem the subject property is hereby REINSTATED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 21-27.

    2. Seventeenth Division, composed of J. Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros, ponente, JJ., Jesus M. Elbinias, Chairman, and Bernardo LI. Salas, concurring.

    3. Penned by Judge Jesus V. Matas.

    4. Rollo, pp. 16-19.

    5. Decision of the Regional Trial Court, p. 4; rollo, p. 19.

    6. Assailed Decision, pp. 2-5; rollo, pp. 22-25.

    7. Ibid., pp. 5-6; rollo, pp. 25-26.

    8. Ibid., pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 26-27.

    9. Petition, pp. 4-5 and Memorandum, p. 3; rollo, pp. 6-7 and 70.

    10. 217 SCRA 554, 569, January 27, 1993.

    11. G.R. No 117029, March 19, 1997, pp. 12-13.

    12. Partial Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, p. 3; rollo, p. 13.

    13. AHS/Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 319, 329, June 14, 1996.

    G.R. No. 119184   July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE 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