ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 140419. January 26, 2000]

CHINA BANKING CORP. vs. CELIA SIQUIAN

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2000.

G.R. No 140419 (China Banking Corporation vs. Celia Siquian.)

For consideration of this Court are: (a) the manifestation and motion of petitioner China Banking Corporation that its petition be considered to have been filed under both Rule 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court; and (b) its petition assailing the resolution, dated November 29, 1999, of the Court of Appeals, which denied the special civil action for certiorari filed by it respecting the order, dated June 3, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 223, Quezon City. In the said order, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner in Civil Case No. Q99-37466, which is for declaration of nullity of a real estate mortgage.

In her complaint dated April 23, 1999 before the trial court, private respondent Celia S. Siquian alleged that she is the legal spouse of Manuel L. Siquian, Sr. On June 22, 1989, Manuel purchased a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 261850 using conjugal funds without the knowledge and consent of private respondent. Manuel was able to secure the issuance in his mane alone of TCT No. N-133309 over the subject parcel of land. It is indicated in the certificate that Manuel is the sole owner of the said property and that his civil status is single. On October 25, 1995, Manuel and his paramour, Jerocel L. Agravante, representing themselves to be legally married, constitutes a real estate mortgage over the subject parcel of land in favor of petitioner to secure a loan in the amount of P17,700,000.00. Private respondent prayed that the real estate mortgage over the property in question be declared void and that petitioner, Manuel, and Jerocel be ordered to pay her damages.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss dated May 5, 1999 on the ground that since it was a mortgagee in good faith, the complaint of private respondent does not state a cause of action against it. Petitioner claims it relied in good faith on the civil status of Manuel as indicated in TCT No. N-133309. The trial court denied petitioner's motion in its order, dated June 3, 1999. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari but the Court of Appeals denied its petition in its resolution, dated November 29, 1999. According to the Court of Appeals:

We note the following deficiencies:

How Ramiro Amanquiton became an authorized representative of the petitioner (China Banking Corporation), for the purpose of prosecuting this case, has not been clarified in the petition;

The Order, Annex "A"; the marriage contract; the Deed of Absolute Sale; the document of mortgage; and the letter dated January 9, 1999 by Atty. De Leon, are hardly legible copies.

Not being sufficient in form, the Petition for Certiorari is denied due course, and is hereby dismissed.

In this case, petitioner contends:

I. A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WAS COMMITTED WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI (CA-G.R. NO. 53887-SP) ON PURE TECHNICALITIES.

II. A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WAS COMMITTED WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED THE PETITION (GR No. 53887-SP) DESPITE THE PATENT MERITS OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 53887.

The petition is without merit.

First. Petitioner is correct that the then Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals does not require the submission of a secretary's certificate or a board resolution regarding the authority of an officer of a juridical entity to verify a petition in its behalf. Hence, the statement in the Verification/Certification accompanying the special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioner with the Court of Appeals that Ramiro A. Amanquiton is the Branch Operations Head of China Banking Corporation, Libis, Quezon City Branch, is sufficient. However, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner's special civil action for certiorari, because petitioner failed to submit clearly legible copies of the annexes as required by Rule 6 �2(a) of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals. The subsequent attempt of petitioner to rectify its error by submitting legible copies of the said documents cannot be considered favorably since such was done merely as an afterthought.

Second. Petitioner's contention that it is a mortgagee in good faith and, therefore, the complaint filed against it does not state a cause of action, is untenable. Banks are expected to be more careful in their dealings over registered lands than ordinary people. (Gonzales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 587 (1988)). In determining Manuel's real civil status, petitioner should not have relied solely on the statement in TCT No. N-133309 that he was single when the same was issued.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to (1) NOTE and GRANT the manifestation and motion of petitioner China Banking Corporation that its petition be considered to have been filed under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court and (2) DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE