Search for books, audiobooks, sheet music and more...

Upload EN

The world’s largest digital library

Home

0 0 RELATED TITLES
223 views
Saved

Case Digests
Bestsellers Uploaded by czabina fatima delica
on Mar 21, 2017

Books CAse digest on Credit Transaction,

Real estate mortgage and preference
Civpro - Riano Caire Claim Case Caire Cla
Audiobooks of credit Full description
Reviewer

Magazines Save Embed Share Print

Documents
Download Search document

Sheet Music

CASE DIGEST
CASE No. 1 SORIANO V. BAUTISTA 6 SCRA 946 (1962)
FACTS: Spouses Bautista are the absolute and registered owners of a parcel of land. In May
@!" #$%&" the said spouses entered into an agree'ent entitled (asulatan ng Sanglaan
)'ortgage* in fa+or of spouses Soriano for the a'ount of ,#"-!!. Si'ultaneously with the
signing of the deed" the spouses Bautista transferred the possession of the subNect property
to spouses Soriano. The spouses Soriano ha+e" since that date" been in possession of the
property and are still enNoying the produce thereof to the e/clusion of all other persons
So'eti'e after May #$%&" the spouses Bautista recei+ed fro' spouses Soriano the su' of
,0%! pursuant to the conditions agreed upon in the docu'ent. 1owe+er" no receipt was
issued. The said a'ount was returned by the spouses Bautista
In May #@" #$%-" a certain Atty. 2er infor'ed the spouses Bautista that the spouses Soriano
ha+e decided to purchase the subNect property pursuant to par. % of the docu'ent which
states that 34the 'ortgagees 'ay purchase the said land absolutely within the 56year ter'
of the 'ortgage for ,@"$!!.7
Despite the receipt of the letter" the spouses Bautista refused to co'ply with Soriano8s
de'and
As such" spouses Soriano 9led a case" praying that they be allowed to consign or deposit with
the Cler: of Court the su' of ,#"&%! as the balance of the purchase price of the land in
;uestion
The trial court held in fa+or of Soriano and ordered Bautista to e/ecute a deed of absolute
sale o+er the said property in fa+or of Soriano.
Subse;uently spouses Bautista 9led a case against Soriano" as:ing the court to order Soriano
to accept the pay'ent of the principal obligation and release the 'ortgage and to 'a:e an
accounting the har+est for the 5 har+est seasons )#$%&6#$%<*.
C=I held in Soriano8s fa+or and ordered the e/ecution of the deed of sale in their fa+or
Bautista argued that as 'ortgagors" they cannot be depri+ed of the right to redee' the
'ortgaged property" as such right is inherent in and inseparable fro' a 'ortgage.
Read books, audiobooks, and more
Scribd
ISSUE>
½
HELD> ao. ?hile
View of subNect property
?@a spouses Bautista are entitled to rede'ption
the transaction is undoubtedly a 'ortgage and contains the custo'ary
GET —concerning
stipulation On the App rede'ption"
Store it carries the added special pro+ision which renders the
'ortgagor8s right to redee' defeasible at the election of the 'ortgagees. There is nothing
illegal or i''oral in this as this is allowed under Art #0<$ aCC which states> 3A pro'ise to
buy and sell a deter'inate thing for a price certain is reciprocally de'andable. An accepted
unilateral pro'ise to buy or to sell a deter'inate thing for a price certain is binding upon the
pro'issor if the pro'ise supported by a consideration apart fro' the price.7
In the case at bar" the 'ortgagor8s pro'ise is supported by the sa'e consideration as that of
the 'ortgage itself" which is distinct fro' the consideration in sale should the option be
e/ercised. The 'ortgagor8s pro'ise was in the nature of a continuing ober" non6withdrawable
during a period of 5 years" which upon acceptance by the 'ortgagees ga+e rise to a
perfected contract of sale.

TENDER INEFFECTIVE AS PREEMPTIVE RIGHT TO PURCHASE BY OTHER PARTY HAS

BEEN E@ERCISED
The tender of ,#"-!! to redee' the 'ortgage by spouses Bautista was inebecti+e for the
purpose intended. Such tender 'ust ha+e been 'ade after the option to purchase had been
e/ercised by spouses Soriano. Bautista8s ober to redee' could be defeated by Soriano8s
pree'pti+e right to purchase within the period of 5 years fro' May @!" #$%&. Such right was
a+ailed of and spouses Bautista were accordingly noti9ed by Soriano. @ber and acceptance
con+erged and ga+e rise to a perfected and binding contract of purchase and sale.

CASE No. 2 S!"#$!%o & D$o"$'$o

FACTS:
In #$@%" co'an San Diego sold a land to Apolonia Santiago" and the sale was recorded in
the cegister of Deeds of Bulacan" in accordance with ce+ised Ad'inistrati+e Code. 1owe+er"
prior to the sale" co'an had already 'ortgaged the land to Eulalia cesurreccion. Since the
'ortgage was also registered pursuant to the Ad'inistrati+e Code" the 'ortgage to Eulalia had
precedence o+er the sale. co'an defaulted in his debt" so Eulalia foreclosed the 'ortgage and
the land was sold at public auction to Angela Dionisio as the highest bidder.
dpon disco+ery of the sale of the sa'e land to Dionisio" Santiago brought an action to
annul the sale to Dionisio" and Santiago also inter+ened for the con9r'ation of the sale and 9led
her opposition thereto. The lower court con9r'ed the sale to Dionisio without preNudice to the
rights of Santiago.
eudge coldan" in Santiago8s action for annul'ent" ruled that the sale of the land in fa+or of
Dionisio was null and +oid" since Santiago was not included as a party to the foreclosure
proceedings" but the ownership of Santiago o+er the land is subNect to the 'ortgage in fa+or of

You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial. Download
Pages 2 to 8 are not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial

Eulalia.
In #$@&" Santiago 9led an application for registration of the land under her na'e" and
a'ong the oppositors was Dionisio" who clai'ed title to the land as purchaser in a foreclosure.
eudge ,otenciano ,ecson ruled that the foreclosure sale did not abect the rights of the applicant
Santiago" who had not been 'ade a party to the proceedings" and decreed the registration of the
land in her fa+or. So" Dionisio 9led the present appeal.
ISSUES:
#. ?hether or not the sale of land to Dionisio was +alid" despite Santiago not being i'pleaded to
the foreclosure proceedings.
5. ?hether or not the land should be registered in the na'e of Santiago.
HELD: 1. YES" insofar as to the parties to the suit" but not to Santiago. Dionisio argued that
Santiago inter+ened in the foreclosure suit" thus she is bound by its results. But" the Court found
that Santiago8s inter+ention consisted 'erely in opposing the con9r'ation of the sale. This is
not the sa'e as being a party to the suit to the e/tent of being bound by the Nudg'ent. That
Nudg'ent had already been rendered and was already in the process of e/ecution when
Santiago inter+ened. Though the sale was con9r'ed" the court said that the con9r'ation was to
be without preNudice to the rights of Santiago. eudge coldan did not declare the foreclosure sale
Eulalia.
entirelyIn +oid"
#$@&"but only Fwith
Santiago 9ledregards to the rights
an application of ApoloniaofSantiagoF.
for registration the land under This 'eans
her na'e" that theand
foreclosure was inebecti+e as against Santiago" although it 'ay
a'ong the oppositors was Dionisio" who clai'ed title to the land as purchaser in a foreclosure. be +alid as between the parties
to the ,otenciano
eudge suit )Eulalia and Dionisio*.
,ecson ruled that Also"
the the sale is subNect
foreclosure sale didtonot Santiagogs
abect theunforeclosed
rights of the e;uity applicant of
rede'ption.
Santiago" who had not been 'ade a party to the proceedings" and decreed the registration of the
land in?h herilefa+or.
it isSo"true that Sa
Dionisio 9ledntia go8s
the intereappeal.
present st in the land was subordinate to that of the
'ortgagee"
ISSUES: Eulalia" the rule of procedure in force at the ti'e the foreclosure was section 5%% of
Act #$!" which re;uired that in an action
#. ?hether or not the sale of land to Dionisio was +alid" despite for foreclosure FallSant
persons
iago notha+ing
being or i'ple
clai'ingadedan to
interest in the pre'ises
the foreclosure proceedings. subordinate in right to that of the holder of the 'ortgage . . .be 'ade
5. defendants
in the
theaction.F
This be rule applied
red not
only
nato'eaof
subordinate
?hether or not land should registe in the Santiago. lienholder" but also to a
purchaser of real property already 'ortgaged to another. =ailure to i'plead a subordinate
HELD:
lienholde 1.r YES " insofar
or subs e;uent as to purthechaparties
ser render to the suit" for
s the buteclnot
osurtoe Santiago.
inebecti+e Dionisio
as aga argued
inst the that
'.
Santiago inter+ened
Therefore" there re'ainsin the foreclosure
in their fa+or suit" the
thusFunforeclosed
she is bound by its results.
e;uity But" the Court
of rede'ption.F found
But the
that Santiago8s
foreclosure inter+ention
is +alid as between You're Reading a Preview
consisted
the parties 'erely
to the insuit.
opposing the con9r'ation of the sale. This is
not the5.sa'e as being aapplication
NO.Santiago8s party to the for suit to the e/tent
registration of the of landbeing
under bound by theshould
her na'e Nudg'ent. That
be denied.
Nudg'ent
The had already
unforeclosed e;uity been rendered
of Santiago and was
still e/ists and already
'ust be in the process
recogniHed of e/ecutio
in either n when
of the following
Santiago
ways> #* inter+ened.
to register the Though
landthe Unlock
salena'e
in the full access
was con9r'ed" withthe
of Santiago abut
free
court trial.
said that
subNect to thethe'ortgage
con9r'ation was to
in fa+or of
be without
Eulaliai 5* topreNudice
registertothe theland
rights in of
theSantiago.
na'e of eudge coldan did
the oppositor not declare
Dionisio subNect thetoforeclosure
rede'ption saleby
entirely +oid"
Apolonia Santiago.but only Fwith regards to the rights of Apolonia SantiagoF. This 'eans that the
foreclosure was
The Court8s inebecti+e
preference as is
against
the sec Santiago"
ond 'ethod" although
whichitwas 'ayalready
be +alid as between
ruled in the case the of parties
De la
to the suit )Eulalia and Dionisio*. Download With Free Trial
Also" the sale is subNect to Santiagogs
,aH" et al. +s. McCondray J Co." Inc." supra" where the Court granted the registration applied for unforeclosed e;uity of
rede'ption.
but subNect to the prior purchasersg e;uitable right of rede'ption.
?h
It isiletheit pre+ious
is true th at Santiago
purchaser" 8s interest
Santiago" who in hastheapplied
land wa fors the
suboregistration
rdinate to tha t ofland.
of the the
'ortgagee"both
1owe+er" Eulalia" the ruleand
by statute of procedure in force atregistration
by Nurisprudence" the ti'e the'ay foreclosure
be decreed was section
in fa+or5%% of ofan
Act #$!" which
oppositor )Dionisio re;uired
in this that
case*inwhosean action for foreclosure
ownership has been Fall persons More
established. ha+ing so"orinclai'ing
the present an
interest
case" theinrecord
the pre'ises
shows that subordinate
the opposition in right to that ofprays
of Dionisio the holder
for theof the 'ortgage
registration of the. . land
.be 'ade
in her
defendants
fa+or by as:ing in thethat
action.F
she be This rule applied
substituted in not
placeonly of to a subordinate
Apolonia Santiago lienholder" but also tofor
in the application a
purchaser of real property already 'ortgaged to another. =ailure to i'plead a subordinate
registration.
lienholde r or subsof
cegistration e;utheentlandpurin cha
theserna'erender s the for
of Dionisio" eclherein
the osure oppositor"
inebecti+e isas agains
proper" t the'.
subNect to
Therefore" there re'ains
Apolonia Santiagogs e;uitable in right
theiroffa+or the Funforeclosed e;uity of rede'ption.F But the
rede'ption.
foreclosure is +alid of
cegistration as the
between
land in thetheparties
na'eto ofthe suit. who does not beco'e its owner until she
Santiago"
5. NO.Santiago8s
has e/ercised her right to application
redee'" for registration
would be subNect of tothetheland under her
obNection thatna'e
it is should
pre'ature" be denied.
if not
The
altogeunforeclosed
ther ano'al e;uity
ous. But of Santiago
" Santiagstill o8s e/ists
e;uityand of 'ust
rede'p betiorecogniHed
n is register in either
able" but of the onlfollowing
y as an
ways> #* to register
encu'brance the land title
on a registered in the na'e of Santiago but subNect to the 'ortgage in fa+or of
of ownership.
EulaliaiThe5* to Nudg'ent appealed fro' na'e
register the land in the is re+o: of the
ed oppositor
and another DionisioonesubNect
entered" to rede'ption
decreeing the by
Apolonia Santiago.
registration of the land in the na'e of Angela Dionisio" but subNect to Apolonia Santiagogs
Theright
e;uitable Court8s preference iswhich
of rede'ption" the sec ondshould
right 'ethod" bewhich
e/ercisedwas already ruled in
by her within the case
three 'onths of Defro'la
,aH"date
the et al.this
+s.decision
McCondray J Co."9nal.
beco'es Inc." supra" where the Court granted the registration applied for
but subNect to the prior purchasersg e;uitable right of rede'ption.
It is the pre+ious purchaser" Santiago" CASE No. whoH has RCBC applied
& CA for the registration of the land.
1owe+er" both by statute and by Nurisprudence" registration 'ay be decreed in fa+or of an
oppositor
FACTS )Dionisio in this case* whose ownership has been established. More so" in the present
case" the record
G@Kd was shows that the
granted creditopposition
facilitiesofand Dionisio
acco'' prays odafor
tiothe
ns registration
by the cCBof C the
initia land in her
lly in the
fa+or by as:ing that she be substituted in place of Apolonia
a'ount of , @! 'illion. dpon G@Kd8s application" the credit was increased to ,%! Million" then Santiago in the application for
registration.
,$! Million" then ,##< Million. As security" G@Kd e/ecuted 5 cEM and 5 CM in fa+or of cCBC"
which cegistration
were registered of the land
with theincD.the dnder
na'e of theDionisio"
0 contracts"the herein
G@Kd oppositor"
co''ittedisitself proper" subNect
to insur to
e the
Apolonia Santiagogs e;uitable right of rede'ption.
'ortgaged properties with an insurance co'pany appro+ed by cCBC" and subse;uently endorse
cegistration
and deli+er of the land
the insurance in the
policies to na'e
cCBC.ofG@Kd Santiago"
then who does #!
obtained notpolicies
beco'efro' its owner
MIC@.until G@Kd8sshe
has e/ercised her right to redee'" would be subNect to the obNection
buildings were gutted by 9re and it clai'ed inde'nity fro' MIC@ but the latter denied the clai' that it is pre'ature" if not
alt
on the ground that the insurance policies were either attached pursuant to writs an
oge the r ano 'al ous . But " Sant iag o8s e;u ity of re de'p tion is re gis terabl e" but onl y as of
encu'brance on a registered title of ownership.
The Nudg'ent appealed fro' is re+o:ed and another one entered" decreeing the
registration of the land in the na'e of Angela Dionisio" but subNect to Apolonia Santiagogs
e;uitable right of rede'ption" which right should be e/ercised by her within three 'onths fro'
the date this decision beco'es 9nal.

CASE No. H RCBC & CA

FACTS
G@Kd was granted credit facilities and acco''odations by the cCBC initially in the
attach'entsLgarnish'ents
a'ount of , @! 'illion. dpon G@Kd8s application"issued by was
the credit +arious
increasedcourts or that
to ,%! Million" then the
,$! Million" then ,##< Million. As security" G@Kd e/ecuted 5 cEM and 5 CM in fa+or of cCBC"
other creditors of G@Kd. G@Kd" alleging better rights to th
which were registered with the cD. dnder the 0 contracts" G@Kd co''itted itself to insure the
perfor'ance
'ortgaged and
properties with da'ges
an insurance before
co'pany the cT
appro+ed C of and
by cCBC" Manila Br @.endorse
subse;uently The trial
and deli+er the insurance policies to cCBC. G@Kd then obtained #! policies fro' MIC@. G@Kd8s
the were
buildings 9regutted
lossbyclai's
9re and it but ordered
clai'ed it to
inde'nity fro' MIC@ pay cCBC
but the its loan
latter denied obliga
the clai'
on amr'ed
the ground the
that ruling
the insurawith
nce poregard
licies weto
re eithe
ther liabilities
attached purs ofuant
MIC@to wrand
its ofcCBC

courts both held that" since the endorse'ents do not bear the si
they concluded that the endorse'ents are defecti+e. The CA
obligation to cCBC without any interest" surcharges and penalties.
ISSUE
?hether or not the ruling of the appellate court is correct.
HELD
The Court held in the negati+e. The essence or rationale for the
'oney is separate and distinct fro' that of surcharges and penalt
loans for's a +ery essential and funda'ental ele'ent of the ban:
CASE No. 4 VEGA & SSS
Topic> Article #5@< N ?hoe+er pays on b ehalf of the debtor withou
will of the latter" cannot co'pel the creditor to subrogate hi' in h
attach'entsLgarnish'ents
fro' a 'ortgage" guaranty" or issuedpenalty by .+arious courts or that the
other creditors of
F!I#': You're
G@Kd Reading
. G@Kd a Preview
" alleging better rights to th
perfor'ance Magdalena and da'ges
ceyes owned beforea the piece cTC ofof Manila
titled landBrin@.,ilarThe2illa
trialg
the 9reshe
#$<$" loss got clai's Unlock
a housing but full ordered
access
loanwith fro'aitfree
to trial.
SSS pay forcCBC
whichits she loan obliga
'ortgag
amr'ed
as:ed thethe Spsruling
2egawith regardthe
to assu'e to theloanliabilities
and buy of herMIC@house andand cCBClot
courts An both held that"
e'ployee at since
SSS said" the howe+er"
endorse'ents that SS doSnot did bear the si
not appro+
they concluded
Download
thatBut thethe
With Free
endorse'ents
Trial are defecti+e. The aCA
'ortgaged ho'es. Sps 2ega )2egas* could 'a:e pr
obligationthat
pro+ided to cCBCthey without
pay the any 'onthly interest" surchargeson
a'ortiHations and penalties.
ti'e. 2egas
ISSUE
their fa+or a deed of assign'ent of real property with assu'ptio
,5!"!!!?hether after she orundertoo:
not the ruling of the appellate
to update court is correct.
the a'ortiHations before
HELDpossession of the house in eanuary #$-#.
too:
The Court ceyes helddid in not
the e/ecute
negati+e.the The essence
deed or rationaleShe
of assign'ent. for left
the
'oney
)eulieta is separate
@9lada* and distinct
a special powerfro' that of surcharges
of attorney to con+ey ownership and penalto
loans
#$-@ and for's a +ery
#$-0" essential
@9lada e/ecuted and funda'ental
the deed of ele'ent assign'ent of the ban:
in fa+or
and ga+e the 2egas two copies" one toCASE be gi+en No. to 4 VEGA
the 1o'e & SSS De
T
:ept opic>theArticle
other#5@< . A stor' N ?hoe+er
in #$-0pays on b ehalf
resulted in Qood of the
and debtor
d estroyed withou the
will of the latter" the
In #$$5" cannot 2egas co'pellearned the thatcreditor ceyes to subrogate
did not update hi' inth h
fro' a 'ortgage"
recei+ed a notice guaranty"
to ceyes fro' or penalty
the SSS. . They told the SSS that t
F!I#':
to ceyes but" since it appeared indiberent" on eanuary &" #
a'ortiHation Magdalena and paid ceyes owned a piece
,##%"<@-.0- to the of SSS.
titledThey
land negotiated
in ,ilar 2illase g
#$<$"
the SSSshe got a housing
accepted ,-"&-# 'ore loan fro' fro' the SSS2egas.for which she 'ortgag
as:ed the @n Sps April2ega to assu'e
#&" #$$@" ,DC 9led the loan and buy
an action forhersu' house and lot
of 'oney a
Manila"Ancla e'ployee
i'ing tha att SSSceyes said"bor howe+er"
rowed fr that
o' SS S did
Ape / Mor nottga
appro+
ge a
'ortgaged
,0&"%!! to ho'es. buy the But lot andthe Sps 2ega )2egas*
construct a housecould on it.'a:e Ape/ aassi pr
pro+ided
Dec e'berthat 5$"they #$$5. paycT the C> 'onthly
ceyes 'ust a'ortiHations
pay the on ,DC ti'e.the2egas
loan
their fa+orbeginning
penalties a deed ofApril assign'ent
##" #$<$ of asrealwellproperty
as attorneygs with feesassu'ptio
and c
,5!"!!! after she undertoo:
a writ of e/ecution against ceyes to update
and itsthe Sheriba'ortiHations
le+ied on the before
prop
too: possession
@n =eb #&" of#$$0"
the house the 2egasin eanuary #$-#. the SSS to ac:now
re;uested
and to gi+e ceyes the'did not e/ecute
an update of the
the deedaccount of assign'ent.
so they could She left i
settle
)eulieta publi
sherib @9lada* sheda aspecial noticepower for theofauctionattorney to con+ey
sale of the prope ownership
rty ono
#$-@
1e also and #$-0"
ga+e notice@9lada to the e/ecuted
2egas on theMarch
deed 5!. of assign'ent
The 2egas 9led in fa+oran
and ga+e a 'otion the 2egasto ;uash twothe copies"
le+y on onethe to be gi+en to
property. the 1o'e
1owe+er" cTC De
6with
:ept Thethe2egas
the otherwere
e/ec . A stor'
ution. able in to#$-0present ade;uate
resulted in Qood proofand of ceyegs sale
d estroyed the
2egas The pro+ed
In #$$5"2egasthethe loss
got2egas of the deed
learnedinfor'ing
a telegra' of assign'ent
that ceyes the'did not in their
thatupdate
the SSSfa+oth
obe
recei+ed
propertyred str toong
a notice
satisfy cotorrthe
obo
ceyesration
unpaid fro' of
debt theof
the fact
SSS. of ceye
They
,@-"<-$.%-. toldsg the
The sal2egas
e ofthat
SSS the
re;t
possession
to c
for eyes
the e/act oft"a'ount
bu the sinchouse
e of it andappe
the lot
aredafterinthey
indebtedness dibere bought onit.
nt" for
and eaThey
nuaryalso
assurance &"
thap#
SSS.
discharge And when
a'ortiHation of and
the SSSpaid wanted
'ortgage ,##%"<@-.0- to foreclose
and to thethe
deli+ery SSS. property"
of the Theyproper the
negotiated2egas
subrogat se
balance
the SSS
They also of the
accepted loan.
sent a ,@<"%5 ,-"&-# 'ore
#.$% fro' the chec:
'anagergs 2egas.that SSS refused to
6 AN#$I, @n
The+ 12HApril
2egas /#&" o0
9led #Q+
#$$@" an C$&$,
,DC
action Co-+
9ledforan I!""
actiono#for!RR
consignation" su' ,3 of$"'oney
da'ages" #Q$and' a I
con
Mansent ila" ed
preli'inary clai'itoinNunction
the tha
ng tratnsf ce
anderyes of bor
Tc@ own roersh
wedipfr
against of
o'the
SSS" Ape
,DC" 'ort
/ the gage
Mor tgadge
cTC pro
she a
,aragraph
,0&"%!!
before the to0cTC of the
buy inthe 'ortgage
Oas lot and ?hile
,iPas. agree'ent
construct the case awhich
house
was states
on it.that
pending" Ape/ceyes
SSSassi re
before
Dec
writ e'b selling
er 5$" #$$5.
of possession the property"
e+icted cTC> is
theceye +alid
2egas s 'ust and
fro' the binding
pay property.in the
the ,DC the loan sense tha
recogniHe
penalties
cTC decided the insale
beginning fa+orbefore
April
of the the
##" loanCA
#$<$
2egas. as is well
co'pletely
re+ersed.as attorneygspaid" fees$# -o+'and " c
oT"+N5 0No7 '+,,$"%
a writ of e/ecution against #Q+ceyes RNoR+N#3 and its TQ$,+
Sherib #Q+
le+ied,o!" onN+7!$"+
the prop
aga
I''*+': ins t pub lic pol icy " bei ng an und
@n =eb #&" #$$0" the 2egas re;uested the SSS to ac:now ue i'p edi 'ent or interfe
property.
and to gi+e
?hether ceyesthe' an update
+alidly sold her of the account so they
SSS6'ortgaged could settle
property to the i
6'ortgage
Article
sherib 5#5$
publi shed
agree'ent ofathe notic Ci+il
thate for Code
she the
could gi+es
auction
not do SSS sothe
sale of theoption
without theofwritten
prope collec
rty on
possession
1e also ga+e of notice
the 'ortgaged
to the 2egas property
on March. 5!. The 2egas 9led an
and
H+,-: a 'otion to ;uash the le+y on the property. 1owe+er" cTC
K 6withTheSC
RRRThere
es. 2egas
the were
are other
e/ec
re+ersed ution. CAable
issues tobut
decision. present
I focused ade;uate
on thatproof whichofin+ol+ed
ceyegs Art. sale
2egas The pro+ed 2egas the You're
lossaReading
got of the deed
telegra' a Previewof assign'ent
CASE
infor'ing No.the'8 DBP in V
that their
MIRANG
the fa+o
SSS
obe
property to satisfy the unpaid debt of ,@-"<-$.%-. The 2egas the
re d str ong co rr obo rat ion of the fact of c eye sg sal e of re;
possession of a'ount Unlock
the house full access with a free trial.
for the e/act of and lot
CASE after
the indebtedness No.they bought
6 R*N!,
and for it.
B!"X They alsotha
o0 C!,ooI
assurance p
SSS.
G.R.
dischargeAnd when
No. LYH2116
of the SSS wanted
ARN$,
'ortgage to
2,5 and19;1foreclose
deli+erythe property"
of the properthe 2egas
subrogat
balance ofsent
the loan.
They
6FACTS:
also
AN#$I, + 12H /
Download
a ,@<"%5
o0 #Q+
#.$%With
C$&$,
Free Trial
'anagergs
Co-+
chec: that SSS refused to
I!"" o# !RR ,3 $" #Q$and ' I
The 2egas 9led an action for consignation" da'ages"
con sented toinNunction
preli'inary the transf ander Tc@of own ershipSSS"
against of the ,DC" 'ort thegagecTCd she pro
,aragraph
before the
Ma/i'a 0cTC
Castro" of thein 'ortgage
Oas
acco'panied ,iPas. ?hile agree'ent the case
by Se+erino which was states
2alencia" pending" thatto
went ceyes
SSStherec
before
writ selling the property" is +alid and binding in the sense tha
for aofloan.
possession
2alencia e+icted
arranged the 2egas
e+erything fro' aboutthe property.
the loan with the
recogniHe
cTC decided the in sale
fa+or before
of thethe 2egas. loanCA is re+ersed.
co'pletely paid" $# -o+' "
the personal data re;uired for Castrogs loan application. After the
oT"+N5 0No7 '+,,$"% #Q+ RNoR+N#3 TQ$,+ #Q+ ,o!" N+7!$"+
a'ount
aga ins t of
pub ,@"!!!.!!"
lic pol icy " Castro"
bei ng acco'panied
an und ue i'p by
edi the
'ent 2alencia
or intspou
erfe
I''*+':
corresponding to her loan in fa+or of the ban:. @n the sa'e day"
property.
?hether ceyes +alidly sold her SSS6'ortgaged property to the
fro' the 5#5$
6'ortgage
Article ban: of an thee;ual Ci+il a'ount
Code of loanSSS
gi+es for ,@"!!!.!!. They sig
agree'ent that she could not do sothe option
without theofwritten
collec
)E/hibit
possession F5F*ofcorresponding
the 'ortgagedtoproperty their loan . in fa+or of the ban: and
signature as co6'a:er.
H+,-:
K RRRThere are other
es. SC re+ersed CAissues
decision. but I focused on that which in+ol+ed Art.
Both loans were secured by a real6estate CASE No. 8 DBP
'ortgage V MIRANG
on Castrogs ho
Manila sent a notice to Castro" saying that her property would be
the obligation co+ering the two CASE No. 6 R*N!,
pro'issory notesB!"X o0 C!,ooI
plus interest an
G.R. No. LYH2116
by Castro and the 2alencias ARN$, 2,5 19;1 and with confor'ity of the ban:" th
but was ne+ertheless auctioned at a later date.
FACTS:
Castro clai'ed that she is a <!6year old widow who cannot read
Ma/i'a Castro"
to her" she has acco'panied by Se+erino
only 9nished second grade.2alencia" went to
She needed the c
'oney
for a loan.
in+est 2alencia
in the businessarranged e+erythingspouses
of the defendant about the loan with
2alencia" who thea
the personal
secure a loandata re;uired for
of ,@"!!!.!!. Castrogs
?hile at theloan
ban:"application. Afterhand
an e'ployee the
a'ount
preparedofwhich
,@"!!!.!!"
she wasCastro"
as:edacco'panied
to sign" with no by one
the 2alencia
e/plaining spou
to
corresponding
the docu'ents. toShe
her also
loan alleged
in fa+orthat
of the ban:.
it was @n when
only the sa'e
she day"
rece
fro' thelearned
that she ban: an e;ual
that the a'ount
'ortgage ofcontract
loan forwhich
,@"!!!.!!.
was anThey
encu' sig
)E/hibit
,&.!!!.!! F5F* corresponding
and to their
not for ,@"!!!.!! andloan
thatin she
fa+or of 'ade
was the ban: and
to sign
signature
note withoutas co6'a:er.
her being infor'ed.

Both loans
Castro 9ledwere secured
a suit againstbypetitioners
a real6estate 'ortgagethat
contending on Castrogs ho
thru 'ista
Manila
part of sent a notice
2alenc ias shetowas
Castro" saying
induced that as
to sign herco6'a:
property would
er of be
a pro'
the obligation
'ortgage co+ering
on her house the
andtwo pro'issory
lot to secure thenotes plus interest
;uestioned an
note. At
by Castro and
respondent the deposited
Castro 2alencias the
anda'ount
with confor'ity of the
of ,@"@-@.!! ban:"
with th
the co
but was ne+ertheless
personal auctioned at a later date.
loan plus interest.

Castro clai'edfor>
Castro prayed that she is a <!6year old widow who cannot read
to her" she has only 9nished second grade. She needed 'oney
in+est inethe
)#* th anbusiness
nul'ent ofas the
far defendant
as she isspouses
concerne 2alencia"
d of thewho a
pro'
secure'ortgage
a loan of ,@"!!!.!!.
)E/hibit F&F*?hile at as
insofar theitban:" an e'ployee
e/ceeds ,@"!!!.!!ihand
and
prepared which she was as:ed to sign" with no one e/plaining to
the)5*
docu'ents.
for the dis She also of
charge alleged that nal
her perso it was
oblionly when
gation she
with rece
the ba
that she learned that
,@"@-@.!! with the
the 'ortgage
court a quo contract
upon thewhich
9lingwas an encu'
of her co'pla
,&.!!!.!! and not for ,@"!!!.!! and that she was 'ade to sign
note without her being infor'ed.

Castro 9led a suit against petitioners contending that thru 'ista

part of 2alencias she was induced to sign as co6'a:er of a pro'
'ortgage on her house and lot to secure the ;uestioned note. At
respondent Castro deposited the a'ount of ,@"@-@.!! with the co
personal loan plus interest.

Castro prayed for>

)#* the annul'ent as far as she is concerned of the pro'

'ortgage )E/hibit F&F* insofar as it e/ceeds ,@"!!!.!!i and

)5* for the discharge of her personal obligation with the ba

,@"@-@.!! with the court a quo upon the 9ling of her co'pla

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Related Interests
Foreclosure Mortgage Law Lawsuit Loans Lien

Documents Similar To Case Digests

Civpro - Riano Caire Claim Case Caire Claim Home Mis

Reviewer UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY Society C
UPLOADED BY Larissa angelescrishanne UPLOADED
laurs XyraKre

More From czabina fatima delica

Legal Counselling Child Witness ADMIRAL and Affidavit

Affidavit UPLOADED BY Maritime Law Cases - Alfonzo
UPLOADED BY czabina fatima delica UPLOADED BY UPLOADED
czabina fatima delica czabina fatima delica czabina

ABOUT SUPPORT LEGAL

About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms

Press Accessibility Privacy

Our blog Purchase help Copyright

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gifts

Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English