ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 134068. July 12, 1999]
UNION BANK OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 1999.
G.R. No. 134068 (Union Bank of the Philippines vs. CA, et al.)
Petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines questions, in this petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 4, 1997.
The records show that sometime in 1990, private respondents executed a real estate mortgage of their residence in favor of petitioner to secure a loan in the amount of P2,000,000.00, which remained unpaid in full at the time of its maturity. The mortgage was consequently foreclosed extrajudicially and the foreclosure sale, of which petitioner was the highest bidder, generated the amount of P3,290,000.00.
A certificate of sale was issued and annotated on the Transfer Certificate of Title of the property. On April 4, 1992 private respondent filed a case for annulment of mortgage (before the expiration of the redemption period) alleging that the property in question had already been constituted as a family home under the provisions of the Family Code. Thus, they claim that it could not be the subject of execution, forced sale or attachment and could not be otherwise encumbered without the consent of the majority of the beneficiaries of legal age.
Petitioner filed its opposition arguing that the value of the family home located in an urban area under the Family Code was limited to P300,000.00, whereas the mortgage of P2,000,000.00 was to secure a property worth P6,000,000.00.
A decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay on March 11, 1993, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the constitution of family home not valid - the Family Code invoked by the plaintiffs is not applicable, and the mortgaged executed in favor of the defendant bank is valid and so writ of preliminary injunction is hereby dissolved.
Further, plaintiff Gonzalo Vincoy and/or Delco Industries, Inc., is hereby ordered to pay defendant bank the amount of P4,816,194.44 as of February 15, 1993, including such sums as may accrue by way of interest and penalties. To pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, private respondents raised the issue of the validity of the mortgage contending that their mortgage contract with petitioner was null and void because of the absence of consent of the adult beneficiaries of the family home in accordance with Article 158 of the Family Code.
On June 4, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision upholding the validity of said contract. However, it modified the trial court's ruling that private respondents should pay petitioner the amount of P4,816,194.44 as of February 15, 1993, including accrued interest and penalties. Instead, the appellate court ordered private respondent to pay petitioner the amount of P3,290,000.00 plus 1% monthly interest from April 1991 up to the time of redemption. The court based its ruling on Section 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states that the amount sufficient for redemption should be equivalent to the amount of the purchase price plus one percent monthly interest up to the time of the redemption. Thereafter, the court reasoned out that since the purchase price was P3,290,000.00, that should be the governing amount.
Petitioner now questions this finding before us stating that (1) private respondents are no longer entitled to redeem since they never prayed for the same; and (2) the period of redemption had already expired.
The petition is unmeritorious. There is no showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. Petitioner raises mere questions of fact already amply passed upon by the court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
