Case Digest (G.R. No. 231913)
Facts:
Samuel Ang and Fontaine Bleau Finance and Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 231913, January 15, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J. Jr., writing for the Court. The petitioners (Ang and the corporation of which he is president) sought review of the Court of Appeals' July 28, 2016 Decision and April 20, 2017 Resolution that had reversed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iloilo City's September 26, 2013 Decision.On August 27, 1998, Cristeta Abaldonado obtained a P700,000 loan from Samuel Ang secured by a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over Lot No. 334‑C (TCT No. T‑125491). The REM provided for a compounded interest of 4% per month and a 4% compounded penalty for delay. Abaldonado defaulted on several installments; on July 18, 2001 Ang sent a demand letter stating total indebtedness of P2,543,807.64 and threatened foreclosure. Ang filed an extrajudicial foreclosure petition on August 16, 2002, but foreclosure did not proceed then due to a suit filed by Abaldonado’s children contesting an extrajudicial adjudication and the REM; that suit was later dismissed without prejudice.
Ang assigned his mortgage rights to Fontaine Bleau Finance and Realty Corporation on December 1, 2005. Fontaine Bleau pursued extrajudicial foreclosure; a public auction was held on March 28, 2006 where Fontaine Bleau was the winning bidder, a Final Deed of Sale was executed on June 18, 2007, and TCT No. T‑161718 issued in its name on October 2, 2007.
On June 18, 2010, Abaldonado filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Foreclosure Proceedings, Annulment of Interest Rate, Accounting and Damages. The RTC, in its September 26, 2013 Decision, dismissed her complaint: the court held the stipulated interest and penalty were excessive and should be equitably reduced but that the REM and foreclosure proceedings remained valid, and it found Abaldonado guilty of laches for waiting many years before assailing the mortgage terms. Petitioners appealed.
The Court of Appeals, in its July 28, 2016 Decision, reversed the RTC: it declared the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction of March 28, 2006 void, annulled the certificate of sale, final deed, and TCT No. T‑161718, reinstated Abaldonado’s original TCT No. T‑125491, and held the interest and penalty void and the obligation subject to legal interest of 6% per annum from July...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that private respondent Cristeta Abaldonado’s alleged efforts to amicably settle her indebtedness negated the existence of laches and thus declaring the March 28, 2006 auction void?
- Did Abaldonado foreclose her right to redeem Lot No. 334‑C by failing to validly tender the redemption price prior to expiration of the redemption period?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in imposing 6% per annum interest from July 18, 2001 and in refusing to impute penalty charges, given the loan’s origination on August 2...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)