ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143896.� September 21, 2005]

BANCO FILIPINO vs. SANTIAGO MEMORIAL PARK

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 21 2005 .

G.R. No. 143896 (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Santiago Memorial Park, Inc., et al.)

Before us is private respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and To Refer This Case En Banc. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision dated July 8, 2005 reads as follows:

Wherefore the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2000 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago, Isabela, Branch 21, dated May 10, 1994 in Civil Case No. 2036 dismissing the complaint for redemption and specific performance is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.

We stated in our decision that the basic issue for resolution is whether private respondent's complaint for redemption and specific performance states a cause of action against petitioner. We ruled in the negative based on the allegations in the complaint.

Private respondent's contentions that the Bank liquidator agreed to allow the private respondent to redeem the foreclosed property even if the statutory period of one year had already expired by requiring them to deposit P50,000.00 had already been passed upon and considered in our decision.

Private respondent claims that there is a new matter which was not considered in our decision which might alter our decision. Respondent states that while the case was pending with the Court of Appeals (CA), petitioner bank was re-acquired by the Aguirre family and under the new management sold the subject property to Northeast Supreme Builders for only P180,484.00 on December 2, 1997 and a new title was issued to the latter; that such sale was not known to the respondent or to the CA. Respondent claims that the sheriff's certificate of sale stated that the subject property was sold to petitioner as the highest bidder for P925,448.17; that respondent, prior to expiration of the period of redemption, offered to redeem the same for P700,000.00; that the CA in their decision allowed respondent to repurchase the property in the amount of P1,350,987.96 which respondent immediately paid, thus the sale of the subject property in the amount of P180,484.00 to Northeast was fraudulent and deprived the government of the payment of correct taxes.

We are not persuaded.

As we said, based on the allegations of the complaint, private respondent failed to make a case for redemption and specific performance since respondents failed to redeem the subject property within the redemption period and during the extension period agreed upon. The effect of private respondent's failure to redeem within the redemption period vests absolute ownership over petitioner. Thus, petitioner had the right to sell the subject property and the party who purchased the same shall only be subjected to the said encumbrance because of the notice of lis pendens annotated in the title. Notably, when the property was sold in 1997 to Northeast, the trial court, on May 10, 1994, had already rendered its Order in the instant case dismissing private respondent's complaint for the same does not state a cause of action as respondent had lost its right of redemption. Since we have affirmed the decision of the trial court, we find that such sale made by petitioner to Northeast would not have any effect on our finding that private respondent has no cause of action for redemption against petitioner.

We likewise find no merit in private respondent's motion to refer the case to En Banc since it had utterly failed to adduce any legal reason for such referral.

WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration and to refer the case to En Banc are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE