ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 100683. May 9, 2001]
CHINA BANKING CORP. vs. CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 9, 2001.
G.R. No. 100683 (China Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Regino Kho and Sally Kho.)
The instant case was assigned to a member of the Third Division pursuant to the Court's Resolution, dated 27 February 2001, in A.M. 00-9-03.
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 would seek the reversal of a decision, dated 23 May 1991, and resolution, dated 19 June 1991, of the Court of Appeals.
Sometime in 1989 and early part of 1990, petitioner China Banking Corporation granted credit accommodations to spouses Willy Po and Loreta Sytingco Po. In connection therewith, the spouses Po issued three non-negotiable promissory notes in favor of petitioner bank bearing a total amount of P4,203,000.00. To secure the payment, spouses Po executed in favor of petitioner bank two real estate mortgages, dated 06 June and 15 June 1990, on their parcels of land situated in San Francisco del Monte and Brgy. South Triangle, both in Quezon City, respectively covered by TCT Nos. 383716 and 36979. The spouses P0 failed to pay their obligation, prompting petitioner bank to initiate an extrajudicial foreclosure-of the real estate mortgages. The auction sale of the properties was scheduled on 24 September 1990 at 10:00 a.m.
In the meantime, on 08 July 1990, private respondents Regino Kho and Sally Kho filed a civil case for collection of sum of money, with a prayer for a writ of attachment, against the spouses Po before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Manila. The case, docketed Civil Case No. 90-54114 and entitled "Regino Kho and Sally Kho vs. Spouses Willy Po and Loreta Sytingco Po," was assigned to Branch 19 of the Manila RTC. On 20 September 1990, a writ of attachment was issued by the trial court and the sheriff levied on the real property covered by TCT Nos. 36979 and 383716.
Upon learning of the real estate mortgages executed by the spouses Po in favor of petitioner bank involving the same property covered in the writ of attachment issued by the Manila RTC, Branch 19, private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage with prayer for a temporary restraining order against petitioner bank and Spouses Po. The case, entitled "Spouses Regina Kho and Sally Kho vs. China Banking Corporation, Spouses Loreta Sytingco and Willy Po, and Jose L. Sineneng, Jr." was docketed Civil Case No. 90-54424 and assigned to Branch 27 of the Manila RTC.
On 20 September 1990, Manila RTC Branch 27 issued a temporary restraining order in Civil Case No. 90-54424 enjoining the defendants from conducting the sale of the two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 369579 and 383716 previously scheduled on 24 September 1990. On 21 September 1990, petitioner bank filed an urgent motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 90-54424 on the ground that the venue was improperly laid and the complaint stated no cause of action. On the same date, the trial court lifted the temporary restraining order upon the posting of a surety bond by petitioner bank in the amount of P943,000.00. On 22 September 1990, petitioner bank filed a manifestation before Manila RTC Branch 27 informing the trial court that the foreclosure sale of the properties of the spouses Po covered by TCT Nos. 36979 and 383716 took place on 24 September 1990 with the bank emerging as sole and winning bidder.
In an order, dated 02 October 1990, Manila RTC Branch 27 denied petitioner bank's motion to dismiss the complaint. The bank's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Petitioner bank filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, docketed CA GR No. 24188, entitled, "China Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Ricardo D. Diaz, in his capacity as presiding judge of Branch 27, RTC of Manila and Spouses Regino Kho and Sally Kho," alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in its denial of the motion to dismiss. Petitioner argued that venue was improperly laid, an action for annulment of real estate mortgage being a real action and the property subject of the complaint being located in South Triangle and San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.
In their Comment, private respondents argued that an action for annulment of real estate mortgage was intended to merely cleanse the subject property of encumbrances which would not affect the title or possession of the parcels of land in question.
In its decision, dated 23 May 1991, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner bank was likewise denied by the appellate court in its resolution of 19 June 1991.
The instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 has raised the following issues and arguments:
"a) The Court of Appeals erred in citing the dictum in Carandang vs. Court of Appeals (160 SCRA 266), as authority for the view that an action for annulment or cancellation of a real estate mortgage is a personal action;
"b) The Court of Appeals likewise erred in relying on the pronouncement in Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of Lucena, 81 SCRA 75, which patently not in point and not applicable to the present case;
"c) The Court of Appeals likewise erred in not holding that the action now necessarily involves the title of petitioner to the mortgaged properties as purchaser thereof in the auction sale held for extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgages in question;
"d) The Court of Appeals also erred in not holding that the fundamental, prime objective, nature of the case of private respondents is the recovery of real property."
In the Resolution, 1 Rollo, p. 108.dated 05 August 1991, the Court required private respondents to comment on the petition.
After the required pleadings were filed, the Court in the Resolution, 2 Rollo, p. 122.dated 13 November 1991, further required the parties to submit their simultaneous memorandum.
On 01 July 1994, private respondents filed a Manifestation, dated 14 June 1994, informing the Court that "they (had) filed a notice of dismissal on the complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage (Civil Case No. 90-54424) before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court." In the notice of dismissal, private respondents, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 90-54424, averred "that the question of venue has delayed the resolution of this case, thereby giving China Bank the opportunity to transfer the property in favor of Aneco Realty and Development Corporation. That in order to facilitate the early determination of this controversy, plaintiffs pray that this case be dismissed, so that plaintiffs can avail of another remedy in Quezon City where defendants wanted it to be brought". 3 Rollo, p. 139.
In the Resolution 4 Rollo, p. 145.dated 19 August 1996, the Court required petitioner to comment within ten (10) days on the Manifestation (dated 14 July 1994) of private respondents.
For the failure of counsel of petitioner to comply with the Resolution of 19 August 1996, the Court resolved a) to require counsel for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt and b) to comply with the resolution, both within ten (10) days from notice, otherwise "the Court shall consider the petition abandoned." 5 Rollo, p. 148.The petitioner bank filed its Manifestation and Motion, dated 30 January 1997, stating that it did not receive any copy of the 14th June 1994 manifestation of private respondents.
In the Resolution 6 Rollo, p. 152.of 26 February 1997, the Court required a) the counsel of private respondents to submit a certified true copy of the order of the lower court granting their notice of dismissal and furnish the counsel for petitioner with a copy of their manifestation and b) petitioner to comment on the manifestation within ten (10) days from notice.
Private respondents, through counsel, submitted their Manifestation/Explanation, dated 30 September 1997, stating that they already furnished petitioner's counsel a copy of the notice of dismissal as evidenced by an attached registry receipt. Moreover, private respondents claimed that they merely stated in the Manifestation of 14 June 1994 that they filed a notice of dismissal before Manila RTC Branch 27 without any assertion that the trial court granted the same.
Petitioner bank, until now and despite due notice, has not filed any comment on the Manifestation (dated 14 June 1994) of private respondent. In its Resolution of 19 August 1996, the Court already warned petitioner bank that the instant petition would be considered abandoned in case of a failure to file comment on the manifestation (dated 14 June 1994) of private respondents within the required period.
WHEREFORE, considering the length of time that the case has been pending and the repeated non-compliance by petitioner of the directives of this Court, this appeal shall now be deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Let the parties be INFORMED accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
