G.R. No. 246995 - Britania vs. Gepty

Petitioner Blas C. Britania (Britania) filed a judicial foreclosure of mortgage suit against respondent Melba C. Panganiban (Panganiban) through Complaint dated November 16, 2012.
Britania alleged that on July 13, 2011, they executed a "Magkasanib na Kasunduan" wherein Britania loaned Panganiban P1,500,000.00 with interest of P100,000.00, payable in monthly installments secured by a 120-square-meter property owned by Florencia Francisco but possessed by Panganiban.
A second agreement was executed on February 14, 2012, revising the payment scheme but keeping the same property as security.
Panganiban allegedly defaulted despite repeated demands.

Panganiban admitted borrowing from Britania at 6% monthly interest until her loans ballooned to about P1,000,000.00 and claimed to have paid P309,000.00.
She explained that a Banco de Oro check for P1,500,000.00 was issued but dishonored after Britania reneged on a promise not to encash it.
They executed the two "Magkasanib na Kasunduan" agreements under notarized documents, which Panganiban signed despite reservations due to financial difficulties.
The subject property was owned by Florencia Francisco; the contract to sell by Panganiban to Francisco did not prosper due to non-payment, arguing Britania could not foreclose on Francisco’s property as she was not party to the loan agreements.

Trial court (RTC, Branch 75, Valenzuela City) denied the foreclosure complaint by Decision dated June 30, 2015 but ordered Panganiban to pay P1,193,000.00 plus interest and attorneys’ fees, acknowledging debt but not mortgage validity.
Writ of Execution was issued on January 29, 2016, leading to levy and auction sale of certain personal properties of Panganiban.
Britania submitted a motion to examine judgment debtor Panganiban, alleging fraudulent transfer of the 120-square-meter property to Panganiban’s sister just before the trial court decision.
Panganiban did not appear at the scheduled June 7, 2016 hearing; thus, Britania moved to cite her for indirect contempt.
The trial court ordered Panganiban to comment on the motion, which she did, asserting the property was not covered by the judgment and that she waived opposition by not appearing.
The trial court denied Britania’s oral motion for indirect contempt and motion to examine Panganiban on November 18, 2016, holding that the alleged fraudulent transfer was a separate cause of action outside its jurisdiction and that the examination under Section 36, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was not applicable for property not owned by Panganiban.
Motion for reconsideration was denied on March 30, 2017.

Britania filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court and violation of his right to examine the judgment debtor.
The CA affirmed the trial court’s rulings by Decision dated May 8, 2019, stating that Panganiban’s non-appearance did not constitute a contumacious act to justify indirect contempt and holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel examination about property not owned by the judgment debtor.

Britania filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA decision, arguing Panganiban should be held in indirect contempt for failing to appear and that he had the right to examine her under Section 36, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Panganiban did not file a comment despite notification.

Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Britania’s motion to examine the judgment debtor Melba C. Panganiban under Section 36, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Whether or not respondent Melba C. Panganiban is guilty of indirect contempt of court for her failure to appear during the hearing on Britania’s motion to examine her as judgment debtor.