CAGUNGUN V.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT Santiago Lee, Rosita Saldana, Benito Yap
BANK
J. CHICO-NAZARIO | RULE 45
FACTS:
1. Sps. Cagungun filed a case with the RTC
Olongapo City against Country
Development Bank
2. Vicente Cagungun has died and was
substituted by his children, while CDB
has entered into a merger and reflective
of this the party defendant has been
changed to Planters Development Bank
3. COUNTRY had opened an extension
office in Olongapo City, and among their
first customers were the Cagungun
spouses who had diverse business
interests in the locality. They opened
some accounts, and for two (2) of which
they were issued saving passbooks in
the name of Puring Dry Goods and V/L
Cagungun respectively
4. It was claimed by the Cagungun spouses
and testified to by them and their
daughter-in-law Sarah Cagungun, that
because of the exigencies of their
businesses that required daily deposits
of the proceeds and of the trust that
they have reposed with COUNTRY and its
personnel, they entrusted and left with
them their said savings pass books
a. At least once a day the Branch
manager Ruperto Reyes or a
certain Bong and Ding would
come to get their funds and with
the agreement that these would
be rounded off and deposited to
their account while the odd
remainder would be applied to
their loan
5. Then the spouses surprisingly got a
letter from COUNTRY telling them that
their loan is past due and payment was
demanded . . . or else they then
investigated why
6. They discovered that invalid withdrawals
were made from their accounts (forgery
was also mentioned). This was confirmed
by Arcadio Ramos, Chief of the
Questioned Documents Division of the
NBI when these were subjected to
examination.
7. CDBs explanation: the various amounts
that were withdrawn were placed on
time deposits on the same date by
Vicente Cagungun in five (5) accounts
held with their children. The other said
withdrawals from Savings Account No.
12241-16 were made by Vicente
Cagungun in exchange for Managers
Checks made in the names of payees
and Joaquin Aganda
8. TRIAL COURT: ruled in favor of spouses:
plaintiffs did not withdraw subject
amounts; falsified/forged signatures;
gave credence to a handwriting expert;
mortgage loan already paid
9. COURT OF APPEALS: agreed that money
was withdrawn from the deposits of
petitioners without their authority or
knowledge, and that this was done by
one or some of the personnel of
respondent; petitioners are not free from
the obligation to pay the admitted loan
(P58,297.16) for though the same was
not paid for failure of respondent to
comply with the instruction to apply the
remainder of the sums deposited to their
loan, it remained admittedly an unpaid
obligation
WON THE CA ERRED IN DELETING THE
PORTIONS OF THE RTC DECISION
DECLARING THEIR MORTGAGE LOAN PAID
AND ENJOINING FORECLOSURE?
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS: They insist that
they were able to prove that the amounts of
P30,000.00 and P118,000.00 were respectively
withdrawn from their accounts (SA No. 38470-
29 and No. 12241-16) and that same were not
applied as payment for their loan. They
maintain that by adding together said amounts,
the sum thereof is sufficient to pay their loan
and to consider the real estate mortgage as
discharged
1. NO. Looking at the complaint filed by
petitioners, there is no allegation that
said amounts were withdrawn from their
accounts and that same were not
applied as payments for their loan.
Petitioners likewise did not ask in their
prayer that said amounts be returned to
them or that they be used to off-set their
indebtedness to respondent. Moreover,
when petitioners tried to prove this
allegation, counsel for respondent
objected and attempted to have the
testimony thereon stricken off the record
on the ground of allegata et probate.
2. SECTION 5, RULE 10: if evidence is
objected to at the trial on the ground
that it is not within the issues made by
the pleadings, the Court may allow the
pleadings to be amended freely when
the presentation of the merits of the
action will be subserved thereby and the
admission of such evidence would not
prejudice the objecting party in
maintaining his action or defense upon
the merit.
3. It is thus clear that when there is an
objection on the evidence presented
 because it is not within the issues
made by the pleadings, an
amendment must be made before
accepting such evidence. If no
amendment is made, the evidence
objected to cannot be considered.
4. In the case before us, the trial
court, there being an objection on
the evidence being presented by
respondent, failed to order the
amendment of the complaint. Thus,
we are constrained not to consider
evidence regarding the P30,000.00
and P118,000.00 allegedly
withdrawn from their accounts. With
this ruling, it follows that the
outstanding loan of petitioners in
the amount of P58,297.16 remains
unpaid.
ALARILLA V. OCAMPO
J. CALLEJO, SR. | RULE 45
FACTS:
1. Spouses Isidro de Guzman and Andrea E.
Enriquez were the owners in fee simple
of a parcel
2. The Spouses De Guzman thereafter
constructed a house thereon, with postal
address at No. 1526 1st Street, Fabie
Estate, Pedro Gil, Paco, Manila
3. 1982: Andrea died intestate and was
survived by Isidro and their daughter
Rosario de Guzman, married to Rodolfo
Alarilla, Sr
4. They executed a real estate mortgage
over the property in favor of Spouses
Reynaldo C. Ocampo and Josephine C.
Llave as security for the payment of their
loan
5. 1995: Isidro de Guzman died intestate
and was survived by Rosario de Guzman
and her children by Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr
6. When the mortgagors-debtors failed to
pay the loan despite demands, the
Spouses Ocampo filed a petition for the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real
estate mortgage with the Clerk of Court
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, who
was also the Ex-Officio City Sheriff
7. The property was sold at public auction
on July 13, 1994 with the Spouses
Ocampo as the highest bidder for
P515,430.76.
8. The Ex-Officio Sheriff executed a
certificate of sale over the property also
on the said date.
9. The certificate of sale was registered
with the Office of the City Register of
Deeds on September 2, 1994.
10. Upon the failure to redeem the property,
the Spouses Ocampo executed an
affidavit of consolidation of title. Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 224439 was
issued to and under their names
11. 1995: Spouses Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. and
their children filed a complaint against
the Spouses Ocampo and the Ex-Officio
Sheriff with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila
12. COMPLAINT: a) by virtue of the Family
Code of the Philippines, the property sold
at public auction was constituted as a
family home; (b) Isidro de Guzman failed
to liquidate the family home after the
death of Andrea as required by the
Family Code of the Philippines, which
rendered the real estate mortgage
executed in favor of the Spouses
Ocampo null and void; (c) upon the
demise of Isidro de Guzman on July 15,
1995, the plaintiffs depended on their
parents, the Spouses Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr.
for support; (d) the plaintiffs offered to
redeem the property for P356,427.91 to
the Spouses Reynaldo Ocampo before
the lapse of the one-year redemption
period, but the latter refused to accept
the same; (e) the Sheriff sold the
property for an amount in excess of
P401,162.96, the correct amount owed
the plaintiffs, thus rendering the sale null
and void; (f) the plaintiffs offered to
redeem the property for the correct
amount due on September 1, 1995, but
the defendants refused to accept the
same; hence, the period for redemption
had not yet expired
13. PRAYER: issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin the sheriff from
implementing the writ of possession
issued by the RTC
14. Thereafter, Ocampo filed a petition for a
writ of possession in LRC Cad. No. 291
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 4. There was no opposition to the
petition. The petitioner adduced
evidence ex-parte in support thereof and
on February 8, 1996, the court issued an
order granting the petition and a writ of
possession.
15. Plaintiffs then AMENDED their
complaint: prayed that the Certificate of
Sale, the Definite Deed of Sale and the
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224439
issued to the defendants as null and
void; in [the] same judgment, an order
cancelling Transfer Certificate of Title No.
224439 in the name of said defendants
be issued to the Register of Deeds, City
of Manila; defendants shall be ordered
also to pay the plaintiffs the damages in
the total sum of P436,000.00; the
 injunction earlier issued be ordered to be
permanent
16. Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. filed on March 25,
1996 in LRC Cad. No. 291 a motion to set
aside the Order dated February 8, 1996
and to dismiss the petition for a writ of
possession DENIED affirmed by
COURT OF APPEALS
17. The movants-appellants received a copy
of the decision of the CA on March 3,
2000.
18. On March 20, 2000, they filed a motion
for the reconsideration of the decision.
19. On August 17, 2000, the CA issued a
resolution denying the motion of the
appellants.
20. The latter received a copy of the said
resolution on September 4, 2000 and on
September 19, 2000, the appellants,
now petitioners, filed with this Court a
motion for extension of thirty days within
which to file a petition for review of the
decision of the CA. [The petitioners
assert that the real estate mortgage
executed by the Spouses De Guzman on
March 9, 1993 is null and void for failure
to secure the conformity of the
beneficiaries of the family home as
required by Article 158 of the Family
Code of the Philippines. Although the
respondents are entitled to a writ of
possession under Section 7 of Act No.
3135, the said provision has been
repealed by the Family Code of the
Philippines, as provided for in Article 211
thereof. The petitioners also contend
that the petitioners cannot be ousted
from the property without the
respondents filing an ordinary action for
the recovery of possession of the same,
to give the mortgagors an opportunity to
be heard not only on the issue of
possession of the property but also on
the obligations of the mortgagors under
the real estate mortgage.]
WON THE PETITIONERS MR WAS FILED
PUT OF TIME?
1. NO.
2. Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court,
as amended, and as applied in several
cases, provides that where the last day
of the period for doing an act as
provided by law falls on a Saturday, a
Sunday or a legal holiday in the place
where the court sits, the time should not
run until the next working day. In this
case, the petitioners had until March 18,
2000 within which to file their motion for
the reconsideration of the decision of the
CA. Since March 18, 2000 was a
Saturday, the petitioners had until March
20, 2000, the next working day
thereafter, to file their motion. The
petitioners filed their motion on the said
date; hence, the motion was filed within
the reglementary period therefor
WON, ON ITS MERITS, THE PETITION
SHOULD BE GRANTED?
1. NO.
2. The petition is bereft of merit, and is
hereby denied due course
3. First. The one-year period for the
petitioners to redeem the mortgaged
property had already lapsed. Title to the
property had already been consolidated
under the name of the respondent. As
the owner of the property, the
respondent is entitled to its possession
as a matter of right. The issuance of a
writ of possession over the property by
the court is merely a ministerial function.
There is no need for the respondent to
file an action to evict the petitioners
from the property and himself take
possession thereof
4. Second. Any question regarding the
validity of the mortgage or its
foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for
refusing the issuance of a writ of
possession. Regardless of whether or not
there is a pending action for the
nullification of the sale at public auction,
or the foreclosure itself, or even for the
nullification of the real estate mortgage
executed by the petitioners over the
property, the respondent as purchaser at
public auction is entitled to a writ of
possession without prejudice to the
outcome of the action filed by the
petitioners with the Regional Trial Court
of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 95-
75769
5. Third. The writ of possession issued by
the trial court must be enforced without
delay. It cannot be stymied or thwarted
by the petitioners by raising issues
already raised by them in Civil Case No.
95-75769
6. Fourth. The petitioners did not even
oppose the petition for a writ of
possession filed by the respondent in the
court a quo. Instead, they filed the
complaint for the nullification of the
foreclosure proceedings, the sale at
public auction and the nullification of TCT
No. T-224439 issued by the Register of
Deeds of Manila in the name of the
respondent, with a plea for injunctive
relief.
PETITION DENIED.