ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 102096. January 13, 1999]
CARMELA CUIZON y MONTALBAN vs. HON. CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.
G.R. No. 102096 (Carmela Cuizon Y Montalban vs. The Honorable Court Of Appeals And Spouses Gerardo And Maria Paray.)
On August 22, 1996, the Court decided the case, disposing thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with modifications:
1. Ordering private respondents to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot No. 800-A-1-A at a price of P170.00 per square meter within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision;
2. Ordering private respondents to reimburse petitioner the amount of P63,053.93 with legal interest within 30 days from finality of the decision.
Without pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED. 1 [Rollo, pp. 307-308.]
On September 16, 1996, petitioner interposed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the said Decision; theorizing, that:
(1) the amount of P67,326.07 representing loans of the petitioner from the private respondents were not signed by the petitioner, unidentified and unauthenticated prices of paper;
(2) take judicial notice of the practice of financial lending entities in imposing "cuts" or grease money, P100,000.00 in this case, in loan releases;
(3) reimburse the amount of P194,002.04 spent for construction of a a house in Lot 800-A-1-B otherwise the Pag-ibig loan will not be approved and in enticing the petitioner to secure loan from DBP for the benefit of private respondents;
(4) Instead of reimbursement as manifested in petitioner's prayer, conveyance of Lots 800-A-1-A, 800-A-4, 800-A-3 800-A-2 and 720-A is proper as proved by evidence on record;
(5) there is a finding of bad faith, malice and fraud, thus award of moral, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses must be awarded.
On February 4, 1998, a Motion to Resolve the Motion to Lift/Cancel Notice of Lis Pendens was presented by the Intervenor - Rural Bank of Compostela, (Cebu), Incorporated.
Petitioner's motion poses nothing new. The points raised and arguments advanced are a new rehash of what had been posed and passed upon before, and after giving the ponencia sought to be rendered a second hard look, we discern no sustainable basis for the stance of petitioner.
However, the motion of the intervenor, Rural Bank of Compostela, (Cebu), is meritorious.
The facts of the case under scrutiny are on all fours with what obtained in Philippine National Bank v. International Corporate Bank, G.R. No. 86679, 199 SCRA 508, July 23, 1991, citing Escudero, et al. v. Dulay, etc., et al., 158 SCRA 69 (1988), wherein it was held:
"We have time and again laid down the rule that the remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is no longer necessary where this Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. In a number of cases, the Court, in the public interest and for the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case."
xxx����� xxx����� xxx
"It is undisputed that private respondent is a subsequent lien holder whose rights over the mortgaged property are inferior to that of petitioner as mortgagee. Being a subsequent lien holder, private respondents acquires only the right of redemption vested in the mortgagor, and his rights are strictly subordinate to the superior lien of the anterior mortgagee. After the foreclosure sale, the remedy of the second mortgagee is limited to the right to redeem by paying off the debt secured by the first mortgage.
The rule is that upon the proper foreclosure of a prior mortgage, all liens subordinate to the mortgage are likewise foreclosed, and the purchaser at public auction held pursuant thereto acquires title free from subordinate liens. Ordinarily, thereafter the Register of Deeds is authorized to issue the new title without carrying over the annotation of subordinate liens. In a case 2 [Metropolitan Insurance Co., et al. v. Pigtain, et al., 101 Phil 1110 (1957).] with similar features, we had earlier held that the failure of the subsequent attaching creditor to redeem, within the time allowed by Section 6 of Act 3135, the land which was sold extrajudicially to satisfy the first mortgage, gives the purchaser a perfect right to secure the cancellation of the annotation of said creditor's attachment lien on the certificate of title of said land."
"Upon a proper foreclosure of a first mortgage, all liens subordinate to the mortgage are, likewise, foreclosed, and the purchaser at public auction held pursuant thereto, acquires title free from subordinate liens.
"x x x Ordinarily, therefore, and unless representations is duly presented at the time of the cancellation of the certificate of title by reason of the foreclosure of the superior mortgage lien, that irregularities attended the foreclosure such as lack of notice to or non-inclusion of inferior lien holders in the foreclosure suit or proceeding, the Register of Deeds is authorized to issue the new titles without carrying over the annotation of subordinate liens. x x x" (Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Philippine National Bank, No. L-16843, April 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 1257, 1259-1260).
All things studiedly viewed in proper perspective and guided by the aforequoted jurisprudence in point, cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated in Transfer Certificate Titles Nos. 112043, 112044, 112045 is in order
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, petitioner's motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED; and the Notice of lis pendens annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 112043, 112044, and 112045 is hereby CANCELED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
