ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 141017. February 2, 2000]
HON. ROMEO F. ZAMORA, et al. vs. ALLIED BANKING CORP.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 2 2000.
G.R. No. 141017 (Hon. Romeo F. Zamora, Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 94, Quezon City, Leonida Torres Africa and Antonio G. Africa, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City v. Allied Banking Corporation).
The facts of this case are as follows:
The spouses Antonio and Leonida Africa executed in favor of Allied Banking Corporation (ABC) a deed of real estate mortgage dated July 1, 1982 over a parcel of land, covered by TCT No. 286250, in Cubao, Quezon City. Upon default of the spouses Africa, the mortgage was extrajudicial foreclosed and the property mortgaged was sold to ABC as the highest bidder. Upon failure of the spouses to redeem the property within one year, ownership was consolidated in ABC. TCT No. 286250 was cancelled and in its place TCT No. 39087 was issued to ABC.
On February 3, 1988, the spouses Africa filed a complaint for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage and sale of the property. They alleged that their principal obligation to ABC had been novated, that the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage and sale either was not published or was defective, and that the price paid for the property was unconscionable. In its decision, dated March 12, 1998, the trial court ruled in favor of the spouses Africa -
1) Declaring the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale dated May 17, 1986 as null and void.
2) Ordering the defendant Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. 39087 in the name of the defendant bank and reinstate TCT No. 286250 in the names of plaintiff.
3) Ordering defendant bank to pay plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00
as attorney's fees, with costs against defendant bank.
On June 26, 1988, the trial court ordered execution of its decision.
ABC moved for reconsideration and for the annotation in the reinstated TCT No. 286250 of the real estate mortgage in its favor. But the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration of ABC. The court stated in its resolution dated November 3, 1998:
Defendant bank has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of
this Court dated June 26, 1998, stating that while it is willing to surrender
to the Register of Deeds TCT No. 39087 in its name, it however asks that the
reinstated TCT No. 286250 in the name of plaintiffs be delivered to said bank
as mortgagee of plaintiffs pursuant to the mortgage encumbrances carried in the
said title. It, further, alleges that the P50,000.00 attorney's fees in
favor of plaintiffs still outstanding in its favor pursuant to Article 1279 in
relation to Article 1290 of the Civil Code.
In Opposition to said motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs aver that the right to collect the mortgage obligation has prescribed, since as found in the decision there was no demand for payment of said obligation from 1984 when the obligation became due up to the present, 1998. And since fourteen (14) years or more than ten (10) years have lapsed, the right to collect has prescribed citing Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
Plaintiffs, further argue that the said mortgage obligation have been
extinguished by prescription under Article 1231 of the Civil Code, said
obligation cannot be compensated with the award of P50,000.00 in the
decision.
The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the mortgage obligation has prescribed and, therefore, there can be no legal compensation of said obligation with the attorney's fees awarded in the decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration of defendant bank dated July 17, 1998 is hereby denied and Entry No. 7176, Entry 6213 and Entry No. 424 in the reinstated TCT No. 286250 are hereby cancelled.
ABC filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to set aside the resolution of the trial court. In a decision, dated December 6, 1999, the Court of Appeals set aside the said order of the trial court. Hence this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners contend that-
I.��������� THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 5, RULE 7, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.
II.������� THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THIS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT APPEAL, NOT CERTIORARI, IST THE PROPER REMEDY.
III.������ THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE MORTGAGE OBLIGATION HAS PRESCRIBED, HENCE, THE NOVEMBER 3, 1998 [ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT] IS CORRECT.
The instant petition is without merit.
First. The certification of non-forum shopping accompanying the special civil action for certiorari of ABC in the Court of Appeals was executed by Atty. Delfin R. Supapo, Jr. of the Ocampo Quiroz Pesayco & Associates Law Offices, the counsel for ABC. This is indeed a violation of Rule 7, �5 of the Rules of Court, which requires the principal party to execute the certification of non-forum shopping accompanying an initiatory pleading. However, petitioners did not raise this point in their comment with the Court of Appeals, with the result that they thus concurred to have the case decided on the merits.
Second. It should be noted that ABC was not seeking the reversal of the decision, dated March 12, 1998, of the trial court in Civil Case No. 53067. ABC was questioning the execution of the said decision in the order, dated June 26, 1998, and the resolution, dated November 3, 1998 of the trial court. These orders are interlocutory orders from which there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Hence, ABC correctly filed a special civil action for certiorari from the resolution, dated November 3, 1998, of the trial court. (Reas v. Bonife, 190 SCRA 493 (1990))
Third. Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, a ruling of a court is determinative only as to those matters directly controverted in the proceedings before it. Civil Case No. 53067 is for the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage and sale of the subject property. It does not involve the validity of the principal obligation of the spouses Africa to ABC. Thus, the Court of Appeals is correct in holding that the trial court erred in declaring that the principal obligation of petitioners had prescribed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
