THIRD
DIVISION
|
NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND
BASILISA BAUTISTA, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 150388 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: March 13, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by the
National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC)[1]
assailing the
From the record, the antecedent facts of this case are as
follows:
The Spouses Bautista owned several lots located at Pasong Tamo,
On
Subsequently, Del Rosario mortgaged the lots she purchased from
the Spouses Bautista with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) to
secure a loan she obtained from the said bank. Again, the whole 6,368-sq.-meter lot was
subjected to the encumbrance and not just the 822-sq.-meter portion thereof
pertaining to Del Rosario.
Del Rosario apparently failed to pay her obligation to PCIB;
thus, the said bank instituted proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of
the mortgaged real estate properties. PCIB
was issued on
In the interregnum,
however, because Del Rosario failed to complete payment on the lots she earlier
purchased from the Spouses Bautista, the latter filed on
The appeal of the afore-quoted decision to this Court,
docketed as G.R. No. L-24873, was dismissed on
In view of the foregoing developments, upon motion of the
Spouses Bautista, the CFI ordered the cancellation of the certificates of title
to the lots already in the name of Del Rosario, including TCT No. 70813, as
well as their replacement in the names of the Spouses Bautista. Particularly, TCT No. 139925 was issued
in replacement of TCT No. 70813.
Assailing the foregoing order, NIDC came to this Court in
G.R. No. L-30150 entitled, “National Investment
Development Corporation v. Judge De
On P400,000.00 loan
from Banco Filipino. To secure payment
of such debt, they executed a real estate mortgage over the same lots they
previously sold to Del Rosario but were reconveyed to them.
By September 1971, the Spouses Bautista defaulted in the
payment of their loan with Banco Filipino, and the latter instituted
proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
securing the same.
The lots mortgaged to Banco Filipino by the Spouses Bautista
were sold at a public auction on
In a letter[5]
dated
On P431,473.25 for the aforementioned
lots. A Certificate of Redemption was
issued on even date.
Thereafter, NIDC was able to secure in its name new
certificates of title over the same lots. TCT No. 139925 covering the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot subject of the present case was replaced and cancelled by TCT
No. 186147 in the name of NIDC.
In several correspondences,[9]
the Spouses Bautista attempted to buy back the lots acquired by NIDC
from Banco Filipino including the 5,548-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot covered by TCT No. 186147, to no avail. Though NIDC was amenable to selling, the parties
could not come to an agreement respecting the purchase price.
On
In their complaint in Civil Case No. Q-28360, the Spouses
Bautista alleged that with respect to the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-
meter lot, they alleged that:
21. That plaintiffs-spouses never intended to
mortgage the land in question [6,368 square meter lot covered by TCT No. 139925]
to Banco Filipino, but for the grave mistake of the latter through its
negligence to include said property in the list of mortgage properties, when
the sole intention was only to annotate Himlayang Pilipino’s right-of-way on
said title, makes said defendant bank
liable to reimburse plaintiffs-spouses the amount of P50,202.39, more or
less, which they might be required to pay defendant NIDC for the recovery of
said property.[10]
As against NIDC, the Spouse Bautista contended:
16.
That defendant NIDC, having learned of
the mortgage executed by plaintiffs-spouses in favor of [Banco Filipino] after
the Supreme Court ruled in NIDC’s favor on its certiorari (L-30150), redeemed
the said properties by paying the redemption price to [Banco Filipino] in the
amount of P400,000.00, more or less, including the 5,546 square meters
owned by plaintiff-spouses;
x x x x
18. That, also, defendant NIDC, by virtue of
the deed of assignment PCI Bank executed in its favor (sic) holds a lien to the
extent of 822 square meters only on the parcel of land in question;
19. That defendant NIDC has no right to
demand from defendant bank (Banco Filipino) and for which delivery of the 5,546
square meters to it was a mistaken by said [Banco Filipino] by its payment of
the redemption price of the mortgage except to the extent of 822 square meters
only assigned to it, among other parcels of land, by PCI Bank;
20. That in law and equity defendant NIDC is,
therefore, under obligation to return and reconvey the said 5,546 square meters
to plaintiffs-spouses, upon the payment by the latter of the proportionate
amount of P50,202,39, more or less, that corresponds to the area claimed
by taking into consideration the total area mortgaged to Banco Filipino by
equitably distributing the redemption price defendant NIDC has paid to the
entire area.[11]
Ultimately, the relief they sought were as follows:
WHEREFORE, it
is most respectfully prayed that after hearing (sic) judgment be rendered in
favor of plaintiffs-spouses by –
1. –
Declaring and ordering that defendant NIDC has no right to demand the 5,546
square meters covered by TCT No. 139925 owned by plaintiffs-spouses and that
its delivery to it by Banco Filipino was a mistake;
2. – Ordering
defendant NIDC to reconvey the said 5,546 square meters covered by TCT No.
139925, now TCT No. 186147, to plaintiffs-spouses, upon payment by the latter
of P50,202.39, more or less, to defendant NIDC for its recovery;
and that TCT No. 186147 be cancelled and
another be issued in accordance with TCT No. 70813;
3. – Ordering
defendant Banco Filipino to reimburse plaintiffs-spouses the amount of P50,202.39
which they would be required to pay defendant NIDC for the recovery of said
parcel of land;
4. – Ordering
said defendants to pay P30,000.00 [as] attorney’s fees and costs of the
suit.[12]
In answer to the complaint of the Spouses Bautista, NIDC asserted
that “it did not only redeem but actually purchased from [Banco Filipino]”[13]
the entire 6,368-sq.-meter lot formerly covered by TCT No. 139925, together
with the other lots mortgaged to the same bank by the Spouses Bautista; and
that by purchasing and/or redeeming said properties, NIDC merely stepped into
the shoes of Banco Filipino and is likewise an innocent purchaser for value.
For its part, Banco Filipino merely denied the allegations
contained in the complaint and argued that the Spouses Bautista had no cause of
action against said bank.
During the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-28360, the same was
transferred to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94 per this Court’s
Administrative Order No. 26-90, as amended by Administrative Order No. 85B-89,
dated 16 February 1990 and 11 March 1991, respectively.
On 18 November 1991, the RTC rendered judgment in Civil Case
No. Q-28360 in this wise:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, a judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Dismissing the complaint against Banco
Filipino;
2. Ordering National Investment and
Development Corporation to reconvey the 5,546 square meters to [Spouses
Bautista] after reimbursement by the latter;
3. Ordering [Spouses Bautista] to reimburse
National Investment and Development Corporation the amount of P431,470.66
plus legal interest of 6% from date of redemption, October 27, 1972 until fully
paid; and
4. Ordering National Investment and
Development Corporation to pay the costs of suit.[14]
The RTC held that NIDC had no right to the 5,546-sq.-meter portion
of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, which used to be covered by TCT No. 139925 (now
covered by TCT No. 186147 in the name of NIDC). The same was neither sold by the Spouses Bautista
to Del Rosario nor mortgaged to PCIB, from whom NIDC acquired its rights. The redemption by NIDC of the entire 6,368-sq.-meter
lot did not make NIDC an absolute owner thereof, but only a co-owner with the
Spouses Bautista of the said undivided property.[15]
The RTC, however, failed to make a
finding on the supposed negligence or mistake of Banco Filipino in including
TCT No. 139925 in the list of titles mortgaged to it to secure the indebtedness
of the Spouses Bautista. Instead, it
declared that, except for the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot formerly covered by TCT No. 139925, all other lots mortgaged by the Spouses
Bautista as security for their P400,000.00 loan from Banco Filipino were
no longer owned by them at the time they constituted said mortgage, but by
NIDC.
Only NIDC and the Spouses Bautista went to the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60159 to challenge the foregoing judgment of the RTC.
In a Decision
promulgated on
IN THE LIGHT
OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
modification that:
1. The Appellant NIDC is hereby ordered to
reconvey to the Appellants Spouses an undivided portion of that property
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 186147 with an undivided area of
5,546 square meters;
2. The Appellants Spouses Francisco
Bautista are hereby ordered to remit to the Appellant NIDC an amount
proportioned to the aforesaid area of 5,546 square meters in relation to the
entire area of all the fifty-five (55) parcels of land, purchased by the
Appellant NIDC from the Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, including
the aforesaid 5,546 square meters divided by the purchase price of P431,470.66,
the dividend to be multiplied by said 5,546 square meters. For this purpose,
the Court will conduct a hearing, with due notice to the parties, and receive,
if necessary their evidence to determine the amount to be paid by the
Appellants Spouses, the said amount to earn interest at the rate of 6% from
In modifying the decision of the RTC, the Court of Appeals
nullified the real estate mortgage constituted by Del Rosario over the 5,546-sq.-meter
portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot in favor of PCIB, for said portion pertained
to the Spouses Bautista. Given that the
mortgage of the 5,546-sq.- meter portion to PCIB was null and void, the
appellate court therefore held that no right over the said portion was
transferred by PCIB to NIDC. And
“[s]ince [NIDC] had no right of interest over the property [the Spouses
Bautista] had no obligation to redeem the said property from [NIDC].” It
ratiocinated that:
In the
present recourse, the [NIDC] anchored its claim over the subject property under
the “Deed of Assignment”
executed by PCIB in favor of [NIDC] under which PCIB assigned its rights and
interests as the highest bidder of the properties, sold at public auction,
resulting from the “Petition”
of PCIB for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the “Real Estate Mortgage” executed by Araceli del Rosario over
parcels of land mortgaged by her in favor of PCIB. However, included in the “Real Estate Mortgage,” without
the consent of the [Spouses Bautista], was the undivided portion, with an area of 5,546 square meters,
owned by the [Spouses Bautista] covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
70813.[17]
Since Araceli del Rosario did not own that said property, she had no right to
mortgage the same and, hence, the “Real
Estate Mortgage” over said property in favor of the PCIB is null and
void.
x x x x
Hence, PCIB
did not acquire any right of interest over the said property at the sale at
public auction. Hence, [NIDC] did not acquire any right of interest over the
property under the “Deed of Assignment
x x x.”[18] (Emphases supplied.)
No motion for reconsideration was interposed by the parties
to the foregoing decision.
The aforementioned
I.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT [Spouses
Bautista’s] PRESENT ACTION IS BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT AND/OR STARE DECISIS;
and
II.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN SUSTAINING [Spouses Bautista’s]
CONTENTION THAT [NIDC] IS MERELY A CO-OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS A
COMPLETE CONTRADICTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN G.R. NO. L-30150.
NIDC maintains that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in
passing upon the validity of the mortgage between Del Rosario and PCIB and deed
of assignment between PCIB and NIDC. It
contends that our decision in National
Investment Development Corporation v. Judge De
On the other hand, the Spouses Bautista deny that our
decision in National Investment
Development Corporation v. Judge De los Angeles amounted to stare decisis respecting the real estate mortgages between Del Rosario
and PCIB and deed of assignment of rights between PCIB and NIDC. They assert that neither our pronouncement in National Investment Development
Corporation v. Judge De
It would
appear, however, from the facts submitted by the parties, that a valid
assignment, binding upon the [Spouses Bautista], has been made by the PCIB to
the NIDC of its mortgage rights as well as its rights as purchaser of the lots
in question. There does not appear to be anything in our statutes or
jurisprudence which prohibits a creditor without the consent of the debtor from
making an assignment of his credit and the rights accessory thereto; and,
certainly, an assignment of credit and its accessory rights does not at all
obliterate the obligation of the debtor to pay, but merely puts the assignee in
the place of his assignor[;]
nor
our fallo in the same case, which
reads –
ACCORDINGLY,
the order of the court a quo dated
March 31, 1967, and its subsequent orders dated May 28, 1968, November 9, 1968
and January 27, 1969, and all related orders are hereby declared null and void
and without legal effect, for having been issued without jurisdiction. The
preliminary injunction issued by this Court on
declared
that the subject mortgage and assignment are valid. In effect, the Spouses Bautista aver that the
validity of the real estate mortgages between Del Rosario and PCIB and
assignment of rights between PCIB and NIDC are still very much open for
interpretation by the courts.
We agree with NIDC.
The judicial findings and conclusions made in Civil Case No.
Q-8407 and G.R. No. L-30150 entitled, National
Investment Development Corporation v. Judge De
Res judicata
or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been
finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation
between the same parties and for the same cause.[23]
The doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy against re-opening that
which has previously been decided,[24]
so as to put the litigation to an end. The
four requisites for res judicata to
apply are: (a) the former judgment or order must be final; (b) it must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (c) it must be a judgment or an order on the merits; and (d) there
must be, between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, of
subject matter and of cause of action.[25]
All requisites are present herein.
It should be recalled that Civil Case No. Q-8407 was
instituted before the CFI by the Spouses Bautista against Del Rosario for the rescission of the Contract of
Sale and the reconveyance of the properties subject of the said contract, as well as against PCIB for the
cancellation of the real estate mortgages constituted by Del Rosario in favor
of PCIB over the same properties. That
the CFI made a clear ruling in said case through its Decision dated
The
rescission of the contracts of sale in question, however, is without prejudice to the rights of
[PCIB] who appears to be the mortgagee of the parcels of land covered by the
contracts of sale in favor of defendant Del Rosario. The plaintiffs take the
parcels of land subject to the mortgage
constituted thereon by [PCIB].[26] (Emphases ours.)
The fallo of the
IN VIEW OF
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court hereby orders the rescission of the
contracts of sale x x x and the return of the parcels of land covered by the
said contracts, respectively, to [Spouses Bautista], subject to the prior lien of the defendant [PCIB] by reason of the
mortgage it has constituted thereon. The respective claims for damages of all
the parties herein shall be heard separately.[27] (Emphasis ours.)
The foregoing CFI judgment became final and executory when Del
Fully appreciating the CFI Decision dated 25 January 1965, we
made permanent, in National Investment
Development Corporation v. Judge De los Angeles, the writ of
preliminary injunction we previously issued on 11 March 1970 in the same case,
basically enjoining the Spouses Bautista and other parties from removing from
the certificates of title the annotations of the assignment by PCIB to NIDC of
its rights as a mortgagee, as well as the highest bidder at the public auction
sale of the foreclosed properties; or from entering into transactions regarding
the same properties. The fallo of our
ACCORDINGLY,
the order of the court a quo dated
March 31, 1967, and its subsequent orders dated May 28, 1968, November 9, 1968
and January 27, 1969, and all related orders are hereby declared null and void
and without legal effect, for having been issued without jurisdiction. The
preliminary injunction issued by this Court on
We reasoned therein that:
It would
appear, however, from the facts admitted by the parties, that a valid
assignment, binding upon the private respondents, has been made by the PCIB to
the NIDC of its mortgage rights as well as its rights as purchaser of the lots
in question. There does not appear to be anything in our statutes or
jurisprudence which prohibits a creditor without the consent of the debtor from
making an assignment of his credit and the rights accessory thereto; and,
certainly, an assignment of credit and its accessory rights does not at all
obliterate the obligation of the debtor to pay, but merely puts the assignee in
the place of his assignor.
It is very clear from the afore-quoted ponencia that it abided by the declaration made by the CFI in Civil
Case No. Q-8407, that PCIB was a mortgagee in good faith, and its subsequent
assignment to NIDC of its rights as such, and as the highest bidder of the
foreclosed properties, was valid. This
Decision too had become final and executory.
Nonetheless, we clarify that the Spouses Bautista are only barred
from challenging the validity of the real estate mortgages executed by Del
Rosario in favor of PCIB and the assignment by PCIB to NIDC of its rights insofar
as they pertain to the real properties actually
sold by the Spouses Bautista to Del Rosario. The issue of whether Del Rosario could have
mortgaged to PCIB the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, which
was never sold by the Spouses
Bautista to her, has not been squarely raised either in Civil Case No. Q-8407
or National Investment Development
Corporation v. Judge De
Since only a portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, measuring
882 sq. meters, was the subject of the Contract of Sale between the Spouses
Bautista and Del Rosario, the remaining portion of the said lot with an area of
5,546 sq. meters was still owned by the Spouses Bautista. This
co-ownership by the Spouses Bautista and Del Rosario of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot,
in the proportions so stated, was clearly reflected in TCT No. 70813. Not being the owner of 5,546 sq. meters of the
6,368 sq. meter lot, Del Rosario could not have constituted a mortgage on the
same in favor of PCIB as security for her loan.
The requirements of a valid mortgage are plainly laid down
in Article 2085 of the New Civil Code, viz:
ART.
2085. The following requisites are
essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfilment
of a principal obligation;
(2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the
absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged;
(3) That the persons constituting the pledge
or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence
thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.
Third persons
who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by
pledging or mortgaging their own property.
For a person to validly constitute a mortgage on real
estate, he must be the absolute owner thereof as required by Article 2085 of
the New Civil Code. In other words, the
mortgagor must be the owner; otherwise, the mortgage is void.[30]
Del
Rosario was NOT the owner of the 5,546-sq.- meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot, so she could not have mortgaged the same to PCIB. There being no valid mortgage of the said
portion to PCIB, it could not be subjected to foreclosure; it could not be sold
at the public auction; it could not be bought by PCIB as the highest bidder at
the public auction; and it could not be assigned by PCIB to NIDC.
The 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot
remained the property of the Spouses Bautista.
The 882-sq.-meter portion of the same lot was reconveyed to the Spouses
Bautista after the rescission of its sale to Del Rosario, but subject to the
rights of PCIB as mortgagee and highest bidder for the same (which rights PCIB
would later assign to NIDC).
The more pressing issue for us to resolve now is whether the
Spouses Bautista mortgaged the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, then covered by TCT No.
139925, to Banco Filipino. A negative
answer would mean that there was no valid mortgage of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot,
and Banco Filipino could not have foreclosed the same; and the 5,546-sq.-meter portion
thereof would still remain the property of the Spouses Bautista (no longer at
issue is the 882-sq.- meter portion, which already pertains to NIDC).
Since the inception of the case at bar, the Spouses Bautista
have maintained that they did not deliver TCT No. 139925 to Banco Filipino as
part of the security for their loan from the said bank, but solely for the
purpose of annotating at the dorsal part of said certificate of title the
Right-of-Way of Himlayang Pilipino, a sister company of Banco Filipino, on a
portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, i.e.,
the 822-sq.-meter portion thereof.
The records of the present petition, however, reveal enough evidence
to belie their denial of the mortgage constituted on the 6,368-sq.-meter lot; and
to attest to the real intent of the parties, that is, to make the 6,368 sq. meter lot covered by TCT No. 139925 part of the
security for the P400,000.00 loan obtained by the Spouses Bautista from
Banco Filipino. First, since
10 June 1969, when the real estate mortgage contract was executed by the Spouses
Bautista in favor of Banco Filipino, until after the foreclosure, auction sale,
and “redemption” of the mortgaged properties, no objection, written or
otherwise, was ever communicated by the Spouses Bautista to Banco Filipino on
the supposed erroneous inclusion of TCT No. 139925 in the list of mortgaged
properties. Second, if it were true that the Spouses Bautista delivered
TCT No. 139925 merely for the annotation thereon of the right-of-way of Himlayang
Pilipino over 822-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, they should
have surrendered the said certificate to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City
and not to Don Tomas Aguirre of Banco Filipino. Third,
the Spouses Bautista wrote several letters[31]
to NIDC, from
NIDC “redeemed” the properties mortgaged by the Spouses
Bautista from Banco Filipino, which were foreclosed and bought by the latter as
the highest bidder at the public auction. Except for the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot, NIDC basically acquired the very same properties assigned to it by PCIB;
such assignment had been held legal and valid by the CFI in Civil Case No.
Q-8407 in its
That the properties mortgaged by the Spouses Bautista to
Banco Filipino were validly foreclosed and sold at the public auction held on
Reference is made to the governing law on extrajudicial foreclosure
of real estate mortgages, i.e.,
Republic Act No. 3135 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under
Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages,” as amended by
Republic Act No. 4118.[33]
Section 6 of the said statute provides:
SECTION
6. In all cases in which an
extrajudicial sale is made under the special power hereinbefore referred to,
the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment
creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent
to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem
the same at any time within the term of one
year from and after the date of the sale x x x. (Emphasis ours.)
In a long line of cases, however, we have consistently held
that this one-year redemption period should be counted not from the date of
foreclosure sale, but from the time the certificate of sale was registered with
the Register of Deeds.[34]
In this case, therefore, the one-year
redemption period should be reckoned from the time the certificate of sale was
registered on
The law speaks of “one year” period within which to exercise
redemption. Under Article 13 of the New Civil Code, a year is understood to be
of three hundred sixty-five (365) days. Applying said article, the period of
one year within which to redeem the properties mortgaged to Banco Filipino by
the Spouses Bautista shall be 365 days from
The tender of P431,570.66, supposedly the redemption
price, by NIDC to Banco Filipino on
To summarize, this Court’s affirmation of NIDC’s entitlement
to the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot is brought about by
the following findings: (1) that the judicial conclusions made in Civil Case
No. Q8407 and G.R. No. L-30150, entitled, “National
Investment Development Corporation v. Judge De los Angeles,” which declared
and affirmed, respectively, the validity of the mortgage made by Del Rosario in
favor of PCIB and the subsequent assignment by the latter to NIDC of the
properties Del Rosario earlier purchased from the Spouses Bautista, are binding
upon the parties in the present petition; thus, these issues shall not be
raised anew in consonance with the principle of res judicata; (2) that with respect to the 5,546-sq.-meter portion
of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, however, we recognize that the same judgments cannot
bar the Spouses Bautista from assailing the mortgage to PCIB and/or assignment
to NIDC of the said portion, as the same was never actually sold by the spouses
to Del Rosario, but the latter, nevertheless, mortgaged it in full to PCIB
despite acquiring only an 822-sq.-meter portion of the total 6,368-sq.-meter
area, because this issue was never even raised in either of the two (2)
preceding cases; (3) that the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot remained the property of the Spouses Bautista at the time they obtained a P400,000.00
loan from Banco Filipino; (4) that, notwithstanding their protestations, the
evidence on record speaks of the fact that the Spouses Bautista presented the
entire 6,368-sq.-meter lot as part of the security for said indebtedness, and
not just to have a right-of-way established with respect to the 822-sq.-meter portion
of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot and to have said easement annotated at the back of
the certificate of title covering said lot; (5) that since it was established
that the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot was, indeed,
mortgaged to Banco Filipino, the same was validly foreclosed and sold at public
auction when the Spouses Bautista failed to pay their loan to Banco Filipino;
and (6) that regardless of the terminology used, after negotiation, the redemption
by NIDC from Banco Filipino of the properties mortgaged to the latter by the
Spouses Bautista, including the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter
lot, was actually an ordinary sale, considering that the one-year redemption
period provided by law had expired without anyone having redeemed the
foreclosed properties.
Essentially, therefore, except
for the 5,546-sq.-meter portion of the 6,368-sq.-meter lot, NIDC twice became
the owner of said properties, having already acquired them by virtue of the
assignment executed in its favor by PCIB and, again, having purchased the same
from Banco Filipino.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner National Investment Development
Corporation is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60159 dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] NIDC used to be a subsidiary of the Philippine National
Bank.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now
a retired Associate Justice of this Court), with Associate Justices Renato C.
Dacudao and Mariano C. del Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 34-53.
[3] Penned by Judge Hermogenes Caluag; records, pp.
261-263.
[4]
[5] Exhibit V, Folder of Exhibits.
[6] 140-B Phil. 452 (1971).
[7] Exhibit V, Folder of Exhibits.
[8]
[9] Records, pp. 17-21.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] TCT No. 70813 in the names of the spouses Bautista and
Del Rosario was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 139925 in the names of the
spouses Bautista, which was later also cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 186147
in the name of NIDC.
[18] Records, p. 187.
[19] Rollo,
pp. 9-32.
[20]
[21] Supra note 6 at 461.
[22]
[23] Equitable
Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil.
579, 590 (2004).
[24] 46 Am Jur 2d, Judgments, § 520, citing Rail N Ranch Corp. v. State, 7 Ariz App
558, 441 P2d 786.
[25] De la Cruz v. Joaquin,
G.R. No. 162788,
[26] Records, p. 263.
[27]
[28] G.R. No. L-24873.
[29] National
Investment and Development Corporation v. Judge De
[30] National Bank v.
Gil, 55 Phil. 639, 643 (1931); Contreras
v. China Banking Corporation, 76 Phil. 709 (1946).
31 A.
‘This is a
reiteration of our proposal to settle all of the parcels of land involved in
Civil Case No. Q-8407 x x x and Q-10636 x x x.
Briefly
stated, our proposal to settle the said civil cases are as follows:
x x x x
3. That the payment to be made by my
client will include the amount NIDC paid to Banco Filipino to redeem some parcels
of land which my clients mortgaged to the said bank;
4. That, in turn, NIDC will reconvey
to my clients the parcels of land in question including the remaining portion
of Don Nicolas Village;’ (Records, p. 402).
B.
‘Basilisa
Roque, et al. now offer to retrieve the parcels of land involved in Civil Cases
Nos. Q-8407 and Q-10636, which were acquired by the NIDC, for a consideration
to be agreed upon and under such terms and conditions as the NIDC may require.
These parcels are listed in the hereto attached annex. As for the amount of the
consideration, in view of the various factors attendant in the matter, we
request a conference with your goodselves or your designated
representative/representatives so as to arrive at what is mutually fair, just
and reasonable;’ (id. at 397-399).
C.
‘My clients
through this representation are offering P1,898,900. This amount is
below your quoted price but, if you will reappraise the property, considering
its location, terrain and accessibility, its area disposable through
subdivision sales, its attractiveness to lot buyers as affected by the
neighboring properties, the needed additional investments to condition it for
sale as residential lots, the increased taxes and other similar factors, you
will find the offer reasonable.’; (id. at 404).
[32] A.
‘In view of the
foregoing, we wish to reiterate our request to redeem said properties and with
respect to the parcel of land consisting of about 5,546 square meters, more or
less, we request that the same be reconveyed to us.’ (Records, pp. 17-18.)
B.
‘In view of the
foregoing, we request that the 5,546 square meters belonging to our client and
covered by TCT No. 70813 be reconveyed to her.’ (id. at 20-21.)
[33] Luna v. Encarnacion,
91 Phil. 531 (1952).
[34] Quimson v.
Philippine National Bank,
146 Phil. 629 (1970).
[35] Bernardez v.
Reyes, G.R.
No. 71832,
[36] Article 13. When
the law speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that
years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days,
of twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their
name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively
have.
In computing a period, the first day
shall be excluded, and the last day included.