Case Digest (G.R. No. 217617) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Carmelita T. Borlongan (G.R. No. 217617) and Eliseo C. Borlongan, Jr. (G.R. No. 218540) vs. Banco de Oro (formerly Equitable PCI Bank), decided April 5, 2017, the petitioners discovered in 2012 that their Pasig City property (TCT No. 0421), acquired in 1976 at No. 111 Sampaguita Street, was subject to an execution sale in Civil Case No. 03-0713 before RTC Makati Branch 134. BDO had sued Tancho Corporation for sums owed, impleading Carmelita as surety via four security agreements. After a lone failed personal summons attempt at the debtor’s Fumakilla Compound address in July 2003, the trial court allowed summons by publication in October 2003. BDO obtained an ex parte writ of attachment (2004) and later a writ of execution (2008), then auctioned the subject property on October 6, 2009, acquiring title. Eliseo filed in January 2013 a separate suit in RTC Pasig (CC No. 73761) to annul his wife’s surety agreements and levy of their conjugal property, alleging lack of his consent Case Digest (G.R. No. 217617) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Acquisition and Annotation of the Property
- In 1976, Eliseo C. Borlongan, Jr. and spouse Carmelita acquired a parcel at No. 111 Sampaguita St., Valle Verde II, Pasig City (TCT No. 0421).
- In 2012, they discovered an annotation that the property was subject to an execution sale in Civil Case No. 03-0713 pending before Makati RTC, Branch 134.
- Proceedings Before Makati RTC (CC No. 03-0713)
- In 2003, Banco de Oro (BDO) sued Tancho Corporation for sums due and impleaded Carmelita as surety.
- July 2003: Sheriff’s return showed failed personal service at Fumakilla Compound (Tancho’s former office).
- October 2003: RTC allowed service by publication.
- August 2004: Ex parte writ of attachment issued, attaching the Sampaguita property.
- February 2006: Attempted personal service at the property failed; BDO published alias summons in May 2006.
- November 2007: RTC Decision held defendants liable for ₱32,543,856.33 plus interest and attorneys’ fees; published June 2008.
- August 2008: Writ of Execution issued; October 2008: sheriff’s levy and attempted service of the writ of execution failed.
- October 2009: Property sold at auction to BDO as highest bidder.
- Subsequent Actions
- January 2013: Eliseo filed annulment of surety agreements, attachment and sale (CC No. 73761) in Pasig RTC; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, then partly reinstated.
- CA G.R. SP No. 133994 (2015): CA held Pasig RTC lacked jurisdiction; SC denied review (Rule 45).
- Carmelita filed petition for annulment of judgment with TRO/WPI in CA G.R. SP No. 134664; TRO denied, elevated to SC G.R. No. 217617; petition denied.
- January 2016: SC consolidated G.R. Nos. 217617 and 218540 for resolution.
Issues:
- G.R. No. 217617
- Did the CA err in refusing to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) to halt BDO’s consolidation of ownership and possession of the subject property?
- G.R. No. 218540
- Does the Pasig RTC have jurisdiction to hear a separate action by the non-debtor husband (Eliseo) to annul the attachment and execution sale of their conjugal property ordered by Makati RTC against his wife?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)