Case Digest (G.R. No. 41632)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. B. A. Green et al., G.R. No. L-41632, July 31, 1935, the Supreme Court, Villa-Real, J., writing for the Court.The Bank of the Philippine Islands (plaintiff-appellee) sued B. A. Green in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila in Civil Case No. 24594 (filed June 14, 1924) to recover a mortgage debt and foreclose certain mortgaged properties. The trial court rendered a judgment ordering Green to pay P57,900 (less P62.24) with 12% interest from August 9, 1921, plus attorney’s fees and costs; the Bank successfully moved to amend the judgment (December 23, 1925) to require deposit within 90 days or else sale of the mortgaged properties. Green appealed; this Court affirmed the judgment (decision of Dec. 17, 1926, reported in the record as G.R. No. 26155).
Green failed to make the required deposit and the court ordered sale of the mortgaged property; on October 9, 1927 one parcel on Azcarraga Street was sold and adjudicated to the Bank for P25,000, confirmation occurring December 16, 1927. The Bank had not made the holders of a second mortgage, the O’Brien family, parties to the original foreclosure; the second mortgage was later noted on the back of the transfer certificate of title. To remove that encumbrance the Bank brought an independent action (CFI Manila, Civil Case No. 35023) to compel redemption by the O’Briens; that suit resulted in an order against the O’Briens (citing Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Gonzalez Diez, 52 Phil. 271).
Separately, the Bank filed in the CFI of Rizal (Civil Case No. 4099, docketed Feb. 13, 1929) a suit against Green and the O’Briens to recover P68,618.46 and foreclose additional mortgaged lands in Rizal not included in the Azcarraga sale. The Rizal trial court ordered foreclosure (Oct. 28, 1930) but this Court reversed and dismissed that judgment on appeal (Dec. 12, 1932; 57 Phil. 712), directing dismissal without prejudice to such proceedings as might be proper elsewhere.
Approximately six years after this Court’s 1926 affirmance of the amended judgment, the Bank filed the present action to revive the CFI Manila judgment and execute the unpaid balance against the remaining mortgaged properties in Rizal. The CFI of Manila rendered judgment ordering Green to deposit or pay P88,224.46 (with interest from Jan. 1, 1933) and warning that the Rizal parcels would be sold and that, if the O’Briens failed to redeem, their rights as second mort...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in overruling the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint (as vague, ambiguous, misjoinder of defendants, failure to state a cause of action, and lack of jurisdiction)?
- Can a judgment foreclosing a mortgage that has lost executory force by the lapse of five years be revived by an ordinary complaint?
- May second mortgagees who were not parties to the original foreclosure judgment be made defendants in an action to revive that judgment, and may the foreclosing mortgagee charge interest on the unpaid balance for the period of its del...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)