Case Digest (G.R. No. 235020)
Facts:
Atty. Leonard Florent O. Bulatao v. Zenaida C. Estonactoc, G.R. No. 235020, December 10, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.On June 3 (record shows June 3 and June 4 in parts of the record), 2008, Zenaida C. Estonactoc executed a Deed of Mortgage of Real Property (DMRP) in favor of Atty. Leonard F. O. Bulatao covering a 42,727 sq.m. parcel in Pongpong, Sto. Tomas, La Union as security for a P200,000 loan, with a stipulated interest of 5% per month and a twelve‑month term. When Zenaida defaulted, Atty. Bulatao initiated foreclosure; a Notice of Extra‑Judicial Sale was issued July 15, 2011 and a Certificate of Sale issued October 10, 2011.
Before the foreclosure sale became final, Zenaida filed a complaint for injunction, annulment of the mortgage deed and damages against Atty. Bulatao and court officers, alleging the 5% monthly interest was excessive, unconscionable and contrary to public policy, and that she received only P80,000 despite the P200,000 face amount; she sought rescission and damages. Atty. Bulatao denied wrongdoing, asserted Zenaida misrepresented ownership and agreed to the rate, and counterclaimed for damages.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Agoo, La Union, rendered judgment on May 4, 2015 dismissing Zenaida’s complaint, finding the loan and mortgage valid, ruling Zenaida estopped from contesting the mortgage, declaring Atty. Bulatao an innocent mortgagee for value, and awarding moral, exemplary and nominal damages and attorney’s fees in favor of the defendants. The RTC denied reconsideration; Zenaida appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. CV No. 105581).
The CA (Twelfth Division; Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, penned) partially granted Zenaida’s appeal in a Decision dated October 19, 2017: it held the mortgage valid only as to the portion belonging to Zenaida (limiting its effect against the share of the deceased co‑owner), declared the 5% monthly interest excessive and reduced it ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC Decision by: (a) declaring the 5% monthly interest void and substituting a different interest scheme, (b) declaring the foreclosure sale and certificate of sale void, and (c) limiting the validity of the mortgage to the mortgago...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)