Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Petitioner, - versus
- GATEWAY
PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 181485
Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR.,
JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO DE CASTRO, J.:
Submitted for our consideration is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks the reversal of the Decision[2]
dated September 28, 2007 and the Resolution[3]
dated January 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75108. The appellate courts decision set aside the
Order[4]
dated December 20, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The antecedents of the case are as
follows:
Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage)
On July 27, 2000, herein respondent
Gateway Property Holdings, Inc. (GPHI) filed a Complaint with Application for
the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction[5]
against herein petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB). The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
TM-1022 in the RTC of
According to the complaint, GPHI was a
subsidiary company of Gateway Electronics Company (GEC). In 1995 and 1996, GEC obtained long term
loans from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in the amount of P600,000,000.00. The loans were secured by mortgages executed
by GEC over its various properties.
Subsequently, LBP offered to provide additional funds to GEC by inviting
other banking institutions to lend money therefor. LBP allegedly agreed to submit the properties
mortgaged to it by GEC as part of the latters assets that will be covered by a
Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI), ensuring that all participating banks in the
loan syndicate will have equal security position.[6] Before the formal execution of an MTI, LBP
and a consortium of banks entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
whereby LBP agreed to release the mortgaged properties to the consortium of
banks on the basis of an MTI. Relying on
the said undertaking, the participating banks released funds in favor of
GEC. PNB later became part of this
consortium of creditor banks.[7]
Thereafter, GEC allegedly encountered
difficulties in paying its obligations to the banks, including those owed to
PNB. GEC then requested PNB to convert
its long-term loans into a Convertible Omnibus Credit Line. In a letter[8]
dated August 13, 1997 addressed to Israel F. Maducdoc, the Senior Vice
President of GEC, PNB approved such a conversion subject to certain conditions. As part of the requirements of PNB, GPHI was
made a co-borrower in the agreement and was obligated to execute in favor of
PNB a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-636816 and T-636817.[9] The letter likewise provided that PNB shall
hold physical possession of the said titles until GPHI shall have made the
assignment of the sales proceeds of the aforementioned real properties, up to a
minimum of P112 million, to be applied towards the repayment of GECs
outstanding obligations with PNB. Furthermore, the letter stated that the real
estate mortgage shall be registered with the Registry of Deeds in an event of
default.[10]
In March 1998, LBP allegedly refused
to abide by its undertaking to share the mortgaged properties of GEC with the
consortium of creditor banks. GEC, thus,
filed a complaint for specific performance against LBP, which was docketed as
Civil Case No. 98-782.
On or about
June 19, 2000, PNB purportedly demanded from GEC the full payment of the
latters obligations. Thereafter, GPHI
learned of PNBs supposedly underhanded registration of the real estate
mortgage with intent to foreclose the same.
GPHI principally
alleged in its complaint that [t]he understanding between GEC and PNB is that the GPHI properties
would stand merely as a temporary security pending the outcome of Civil Case
No. 98-782 which was filed by GEC against LBP.
The GPHI Property was never contemplated at any time as a collateral for
GECs loan obligations to PNB.[11] Also, GPHI argued that [t]he execution of a
Real Estate Mortgage in favor of [PNB] over the GPHI Property did not reflect
the true intention of the parties thereto, GEC and PNB. The documents attached as Annexes to [the
complaint] clearly show the interim or temporary nature of the mortgage
arrangement.[12] GPHI contended that PNB had no legal right to
effect the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties.
GPHI, thus, prayed that upon receipt
of the complaint by the trial court, a temporary restraining order (TRO) be
issued to enjoin PNB from foreclosing on the properties of GPHI covered by TCT
Nos. T-636816 and T-636817, as well as from registering the fact of foreclosure
or performing any act that would deprive GPHI of its ownership of the said
properties. GPHI likewise prayed that,
after trial on the merits, judgment be issued declaring that: (1) the real
estate mortgage involving the properties of GPHI and executed in favor of PNB
is null and void; (2) PNB be enjoined from foreclosing on the aforementioned
properties of GPHI and from registering the same; and (3) PNB be ordered to pay
to GPHI the amount of P500,000.00 as attorneys fees and litigation
expenses.[13]
It
appears that the RTC did not issue a TRO in favor of GPHI in the above case
such that, on May 3, 2001, PNB initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings
on the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-636816 and T-636817.[14] The properties were sold at a public auction
on June 20, 2001. According to the
Minutes of Public Auction Sale[15]
executed by the RTC Deputy Sheriff of P168,000,000.00.
Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure
On August 14, 2001, GPHI filed a
Petition for Annulment of Foreclosure of Mortgage with Application for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.[16] Docketed as Civil Case No. TM-1108,
the petition was also raffled in Branch 23 of the RTC of Trece Martires City.
GPHI argued that, in conducting the
foreclosure proceedings, the sheriff failed to observe the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 that the
sale shall be made at public auction.
The entries in the minutes of the foreclosure sale allegedly did not
indicate that a valid public auction was carried out in keeping with the
requirements of the law. More
importantly, among its causes of action, GPHI contended that:
17. [PNB] should not have proceeded in
registering as well as in foreclosing [GPHIs] mortgaged assets since the
latter cannot yet be considered in default in accordance with the Amendment to
Credit Agreement executed by [GEC], petitioner GPHI and respondent PNB on
November 28, 1997. Moreover, [PNB] knows
all along that the subject real properties was never intended to be used as
permanent collateral for GEC, but one which was simply used as an unregistered
security until [GPHI] incurs in default if sold and the proceeds of which
should be used in payment for the obligation of GEC.
Section
5.(5.01) of said Amendment to Credit Agreement states that:
5.01.
Undertaking to Sell and Assignment. The
borrowers hereby undertake to sell the Mortgaged Properties to third parties
and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of the Seven-Year Term Loan up to
the extent of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED TWELVE MILLION (P112,000,000.00). Any shortfall in such amount shall be funded
by GEC. For this purpose, the Borrowers
hereby assign, transfer and convey unto and in favor of the Bank the said
amount of P112,000,000.00 out of the proceeds of the sale of the
Mortgaged Properties.
The
Borrowers failure to remit to the Bank the amount of P112,000,000.00 within
three (3) banking days reckoned from the sale of the Mortgaged Properties shall
be considered an Event of Default (as such term is hereinafter defined) and
shall be subject to the consequences herein provided.
x x
x x
19. Moreover, it was clearly provided in [PNBs]
letter dated August 13, 1997 that the [real estate mortgage] shall be
unregistered and will be registered with the Registry of Deeds only in an
event of default. It is also clear in
the said letter that [PNB] shall only hold physical possession of said TCT Nos.
636817 and 636816 x x x until the condition of assigning the sales proceeds of
the mentioned real properties up to a minimum of US$ equivalent of
PhP112,000,000.00 to [PNB] is complied with.[17]
GPHI,
thereafter, sought for a judgment: (1) perpetually prohibiting PNB from
divesting GPHI of its possession and ownership of the mortgaged properties, as
well as taking possession, administration and ownership thereof; (2) declaring
the foreclosure sale conducted on June 20, 2001 as null and void; (3) ordering
PNB to pay GPHI P2,000,000.00 as moral damages, P1,000,000.00 as
exemplary damages, P500,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit.
On September 11, 2001, PNB filed a
Motion to Dismiss[18]
the above petition, and contended that there was another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause of action. Essentially, PNB argued that GPHI resorted to
a splitting of a cause of action by first filing a complaint for the annulment
of the contract of real estate mortgage and then filing a petition for the
annulment of the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgage. PNB further alleged that the subsequent
petition of GPHI failed to state a cause of action.
On December 20, 2001, the RTC ordered
the dismissal of Civil Case No. TM-1108.
The trial court elucidated thus:
Prior to the
filing of the above-entitled case, [GPHI] filed against [PNB] an action for
annulment of Mortgage with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ
of Preliminary Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. TM-1022. While the first action was filed on July 27,
2001, above-entitled case was filed on August 14, 2001 because there was no
Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued in the
first case, the foreclosure sale of the [mortgage] sought to be enjoined by
[GPHI] as against [PNB] from this Court, proceeded in the ordinary course of
law and a certificate of sale was issued in favor of the bank. Not obtaining the relief desired, [GPHI]
endeavored the remedy of filing this case; Annulment of Foreclosure of Mortgage
with Application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [and/or]
writ of Preliminary Injunction thinking it to be the right resources instead of
pursuing to attack [PNB] in the first case thus filed.
Both
cases, Civil Case No. TM-1022 and TM-1108 practically involved the same
parties, substantially identical causes of action and reliefs prayed for, the
reliefs being founded on the same facts.
Ironically, these cases are now both filed in this Court.
Considering the foregoing circumstances where
a single cause of action has been split and pursuant to Rule 16, Section 1(e)
of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, the Motion to Dismiss filed by [PNB]
through counsel, on the ground that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or [litis
pendentia], is proper.
Suffice to state that the Court deemed no
longer necessary to discuss the second ground relied upon in [PNBs] pleading.
ACCORDINGLY, this case is DISMISSED. [19] (Emphasis ours.)
GPHI filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[20]
of the above ruling, but the trial court denied the motion in an Order[21]
dated March 14, 2002. GPHI, thus, filed
a Notice of Appeal,[22]
which was given due course by the trial court.[23]
In the interregnum, after the parties
presented their respective evidence in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the
Real Estate Mortgage), GPHI filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to
Conform to the Evidence[24]
on November 24, 2006. In the Amended
Complaint[25]
attached therein, GPHI made mention of the foreclosure sale conducted on June
20, 2001 and the fact that the mortgaged properties were sold to PNB for P168
million. Since GPHIs liability was
allegedly limited only to P112 million in accordance with the letter of
PNB dated August 13, 1997 and the Amendment to the Credit Agreement between
GEC, GPHI and PNB, GPHI claimed that it should be refunded the amount of P56
million. GPHI then prayed for a judgment
declaring the real estate mortgage, the foreclosure and the sale of the
mortgaged properties null and void; or, alternatively, for a judgment ordering
PNB to return to GPHI the amount of P56 million, plus interest.[26]
The Judgment of the Court of Appeals
GPHIs appeal in Civil Case No.
TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) was docketed in the Court of
Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 75108. GPHI
primarily argued that the causes of action in the two cases filed before the
RTC were separate and distinct such that a decision in one case would not necessarily
be determinative of the issue in the other case.
On September 28, 2007, the Court of
Appeals rendered the assailed decision granting the appeal of GPHI. The relevant portions of the appellate
courts ruling stated:
For litis
pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following
requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata to the other.
While it is true that there is an
identity of parties and subject matter, the third requisite of litis pendentia is not present. x x
x x
The former suit is for the annulment of the
real estate mortgage while the present case is one for the annulment of the
foreclosure of the mortgage. It may be
conceded that if the final judgment in the former action is for the annulment
of the mortgage, such an adjudication will deny the right of the bank to
foreclose on the properties. Following
the above doctrine, the immediate question would thus be: Will a decree holding
the mortgage contract valid prevent a party from challenging the propriety of
the foreclosure and the conduct of its proceedings?
Verily,
an adjudication holding the real estate mortgage valid does not preclude an
action predicated on or involving an issue questioning the validity of the
foreclosure. In this respect, the test of identity
fails. The answer being in the negative,
the judgment in Civil Case No. TM-1022 would
not be a bar to the prosecution of the present action.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the
assailed order is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is ordered REMANDED to the
court a quo for further proceedings.[27] (Emphases ours.)
PNB moved for the reconsideration[28]
of the above decision but the Court of Appeals denied the same in the assailed
Resolution dated January 24, 2008.
PNB, thus, instituted the instant
petition.
The Ruling of the Court
In its
Memorandum before this Court, PNB averred that [t]he central issue in this
case is whether or not the requisites of litis
pendentia exist to warrant the dismissal of Civil Case No. TM-1108 [Annulment
of the Foreclosure Sale]. Stated
otherwise, the primary issue is whether or not there is an identity of parties
and causes of action in the two subject cases, such that judgment that may be
rendered in one would amount to res
judicata to the other.[29]
PNB asserts
that the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and the
incidents thereto were primary issues tried in Civil Case No. TM-1022
(Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage).
PNB points out that GPHI even filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint to Conform to the Evidence[30]
dated November 23, 2006 to incorporate the issue of the validity of the
foreclosure proceedings. Also, one of
the reliefs prayed for in the amended complaint of GPHI in Civil Case No.
TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) is for the declaration of the
nullity of the foreclosure sale. PNB
insists that the validity of the foreclosure sale was squarely put in issue
during the trial of Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage)
wherein GPHI prayed for the nullity of both the real estate mortgage and the
subsequent foreclosure sale and the certificate of sale issued in favor of
PNB.
For its
part, GPHI counters that the causes of action in the two cases filed before the
court a quo are not the same. GPHI explains that it filed Civil Case No.
TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) inasmuch as the real estate
mortgage executed in favor of PNB did not reflect the true intention of the parties
thereto. GPHI reiterates that the properties covered by TCT Nos.
T-636816 and T-636817 merely served as temporary securities for the loan of GEC
from PNB. On the other hand, GPHI
maintains that it filed Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure
Sale) in view of the failure of the sheriff to comply with the requirement of
Section 4 of Act No. 3135 that foreclosure proceedings shall be conducted
through a public auction.
GPHI
further elaborates that should the RTC grant the prayer in Civil Case No.
TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), it would follow that the
subsequent foreclosure proceedings involving the mortgaged properties will
likewise be rendered null and void. Even
so, GPHI opines that if the trial court declares the validity of the real
estate mortgage in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate
Mortgage), the same will not automatically render valid the ensuing foreclosure
proceedings.
We grant
the petition of PNB.
As a ground
for a motion to dismiss a complaint or any other pleading asserting a claim, litis pendentia is provided for under
Section 1(e), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Section
1. Grounds. - Within the time for but
before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
x x
x x
(e)
That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause.
As we held
in Dotmatrix Trading v. Legaspi,[31]
[l]itis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally
means a pending suit and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a
ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where
two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action,
so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[32]
We further emphasized in Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation[33]
that [t]here is litis
pendentia or another action pendente lite if the following
requisites are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in
the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.[34]
With respect to the first requirement
of litis pendentia, the same is
undisputedly present in this case. GPHI
is the plaintiff in both Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 and TM-1108, while PNB is the
party against whom GPHI is asserting a claim.
That the Registry of Deeds for the
The crux of the controversy in the
instant case is whether there is an identity of causes of action in Civil Case
Nos. TM-1022 and TM-1108.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of
Court defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. Section 3
of Rule 2 provides that [a] party may not institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. Anent the act
of splitting a single cause of action, Section 4 of Rule 2 explicitly states
that [i]f two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available
as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
Apropos, Carlet v. Court of Appeals[37] states that:
As
regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in determining
whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same
evidence which is necessary to sustain the second action would have been
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or nature of
the two actions be different. If the
same facts or evidence would sustain both actions, the two actions are
considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to
the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.[38]
In
the case at bar, a perusal of the allegations in Civil Case Nos. TM-1022
(Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale)
reveal that the said cases invoke the same fundamental issue, i.e., the temporary nature of the
security that was to be provided by the mortgaged properties of GPHI.
To repeat, in the
original complaint in Civil Case No.
TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), GPHIs main argument was that
the agreement between GEC and PNB was that the mortgaged properties of GPHI
would merely stand as temporary securities pending the outcome of Civil Case
No. 98-782, the case filed by GEC against LBP.
The mortgaged properties were never contemplated to stand as bona fide
collateral for the loan obligations of GEC to PNB. Also, GPHI claimed that the execution of the
real estate mortgage over the properties of GPHI did not reflect the true
intention of GEC and PNB. As such, GPHI
concluded that PNB had no legal right to pursue the remedy of foreclosure of
the mortgaged properties in light of the inability of GEC to pay its loan
obligations to PNB.
On
the other hand, in its petition in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale),
GPHI asserted that PNB knew that the mortgaged properties were never intended
to be used as permanent collateral for GEC, but one which was simply used as an
unregistered security until [GPHI] incurs in default if sold and the proceeds
of which should be used in payment for the obligation of GEC.[39] In addition, GPHI argued that the letter of
PNB dated August 13, 1997 was clear in that the real estate mortgage was to
remain unregistered until an event of default occurs and PNB shall possess
the titles covering the properties until the condition of assigning the sales proceeds
of the mentioned real properties up to a minimum of US$ equivalent of
PhP112,000,000.00 to [PNB] is complied with.[40]
Therefore, in essence, the cause of
action of GPHI in both cases is the alleged act of PNB of reneging on a prior
agreement or understanding with GEC and GPHI vis--vis the constitution, purpose and consequences of the real
estate mortgage over the properties of GPHI.
While the reliefs sought in Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) are seemingly
different, the ultimate question that the trial court would have to resolve in
both cases is whether the real estate mortgage over the properties of GPHI was
actually intended to secure the loan obligations of GEC to PNB so much so that
PNB can legally foreclose on the mortgaged properties should GEC fail to settle
its loan obligations. In this regard,
GPHI made reference to the letter of PNB dated August 13, 1997 and the
Amendment to the Credit Agreement between GEC, GPHI and PNB as the primary
documents upon which GPHI based its arguments regarding the supposed intention
of the parties in both Civil Case Nos.
TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment
of the Foreclosure
That GPHI put forward
additional grounds in Civil
Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale), i.e., that the auction sale was not conducted at a public place in
contravention of the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 and that the
foreclosure was prematurely resorted to given that GPHI cannot yet be
considered in default, does not alter the fact that there exists an identity of
causes of action in the two cases. In Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc.,[42]
the Court held that [t]he well-entrenched rule is that a party cannot, by
varying the form of action, or adopting a different method of presenting his
case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of
action shall not be twice litigated.[43]
Be that as it may, while the appeal
of the dismissal of Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale)
was still pending with the Court of Appeals, GPHI filed on November 23, 2006 a
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Conform to the Evidence in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real
Estate Mortgage). GPHI stated therein
that after the parties presented their evidence, the fact of foreclosure and
the acquisition of the mortgaged properties by PNB were duly established.[44] In the accompanying Amended Complaint
in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of
the Real Estate Mortgage), GPHI prayed, inter alia, for the declaration of the nullity of the foreclosure
and auction sale of the mortgaged properties.
As a consequence of such an action, the two cases that GPHI filed before
the court a quo henceforth contained
an identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded
on the same factual allegations. Thus,
any doubt as to the act of GPHI of splitting its cause of action has since been
removed.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated September 28, 2007 and the Resolution dated January 24, 2008 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 75108 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated December 20, 2001 of the
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 22-41.
[2] Id. at 43-49;
penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate Justices Rebecca de
Guia-Salvador and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring.
[3] Id. at 51.
[4] Id. at 52-54;
penned by Executive Judge Aurelio G. Icasiano, Jr.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 45-55.
[6] Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[7] Id. at 61-62.
[8] Records, pp. 37-38.
[9] Id. at 14-17.
[10] Id. at 37.
[11] CA rollo, p. 50.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
at 53-54.
[14] Records,
pp. 18-21.
[15] Id.
at 23.
[16] Id.
at 1-13.
[17] Id. at 5-6.
[18] Id.
at 40-47.
[19] Id.
at 69-70.
[20] Id.
at 71-80.
[21] Id.
at 88.
[22] Id.
at 93-94.
[23] Id.
at 97.
[24] Rollo, pp. 55-58.
[25] Id.
at 59-72.
[26] On March
14, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, this Court hereby orders the annulment of the Real
Estate Mortgage. The parties shall
restore to each other the things which have been the subject matter of the
contract, with their fruits, and the price with its interest, except in cases
provided by law.
GEC is hereby
ordered to fulfill its loan obligation with PNB and the latter to exhaust the
properties of GEC until full satisfaction of the loan.
The foreclosure
sale as well as the Certificate of Sale be declared null and void.
The Transfer
Certificate of Title Nos. 1016921 and 1016920 issued in the name of PNB be
cancelled and the Transfer of Certificate of Title Nos. 636817 and 636816 which
[were] originally issued in the name of GPHI be reinstated. (Rollo,
p. 150.)
PNB moved for a
reconsideration of the above judgment, but the same was denied in an Order
dated July 30, 2008. (Id. at 152-156.) GPHI thereafter filed an appeal to the Court
of Appeals. (Id. at 177) The records of this case do not indicate
whether or not the case has already been decided by the appellate court.
[27] Rollo, pp. 47-48.
[28] CA rollo, pp. 133-138A.
[29] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[30] Id.
at 55-58.
[31] G.R. No.
155622, October 26, 2009, 604 SCRA 431.
[32] Id. at 436.
[33] G.R. No.
159786, August 15, 2006, 498 SCRA 613.
[34] Id. at 629-630.
[35] G.R. No.
163344, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 67.
[36] Id. at 79.
[37] 341 Phil. 99 (1997).
[38] Id. at 110.
[39] Records, p. 5.
[40] Id. at 6.
[41] CA rollo, p. 48; records, pp. 5-6.
[42] G.R. No. 191388, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 205.
[43] Id. at 217.
[44] Rollo, p. 55.