Title
Balus vs. Balus
Case
G.R. No. 168970
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2010
A property mortgaged by Rufo was foreclosed, transferred to a bank, and repurchased by respondents. Petitioner claimed co-ownership, but the Court ruled co-ownership ended with foreclosure; the Extrajudicial Settlement did not revive it.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 168970)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Succession
    • Petitioner Celestino Balus and respondents Saturnino Balus and Leonarda Balus Vda. de Calunod are heirs of spouses Rufo and Sebastiana Balus (d. 1978; Rufo d. 1984).
    • No dispute that Rufo owned exclusively the subject land prior to mortgage.
  • Mortgage, Foreclosure, Auction and Title Transfer
    • On January 3, 1979, Rufo mortgaged a 3.0740-hectare parcel in Lagundang, Bunawan, Iligan City, Original Title No. P-439(788), to Rural Bank of Maigo.
    • After default, the property was auctioned; Certificate of Sale to the Bank dated November 20, 1981; no redemption; Definite Deed of Sale executed January 25, 1984; new title issued in Bank’s name before Rufo’s death.
  • Extrajudicial Settlement and Repurchase
    • On October 10, 1989, heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating each a one-third share (10,246 sqm) and expressing intent to redeem the property from the Bank.
    • On October 12, 1992, respondents purchased entire property from the Bank; Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-39,484(a.f.) issued in their names.
    • Petitioner remained in possession after respondents’ purchase.
  • Proceedings Below
    • June 27, 1995: Respondents filed Complaints for recovery of possession and damages, alleging notice to petitioner of new ownership.
    • February 7, 1997: RTC ordered respondents to execute deed of sale for petitioner’s one-third share and deliver consigned P6,733.33; dismissed other claims.
    • May 31, 2005: CA reversed, ordering petitioner to surrender possession to respondents, holding co-ownership extinguished upon foreclosure and title transfer.

Issues:

  • Main Issue
    • Whether co-ownership between petitioner and respondents over the property persisted after foreclosure, title transfer to the Bank, and respondents’ repurchase, such as to entitle petitioner to compel respondents to re-sell or reimburse his one-third share.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.