Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44932)
Facts:
- Petitioners Jose Carandang and Benita Carandang filed a complaint for the cancellation and nullification of a promissory note and mortgage deed.
- The complaint was filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna.
- The petitioners claimed that the documents were forgeries.
- The Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., one of the respondents, argued that the CFI of Laguna did not have jurisdiction over the case due to the ongoing liquidation proceedings of the bank in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The CFI of Laguna has jurisdiction over the case for the cancellation and nullification of the promissory note and mortgage deed.
- The documents were found to be forgeries and were declared null and void.
- The receivers...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The action for nullification of the mortgage documents is a real action because it affects the title to the property.
- Therefore, the action should be brought before the court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the subject property lies, which is the CFI of Laguna.
- The liquidation court, which is a court of limited jurisdiction, cannot pass upon the validity of contracts such as the mortgage deed in question.
- This matter should be liti...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44932)
Facts:
The case of Carandang v. Court of Appeals involves the nullification of a promissory note and mortgage deed that were found to be forgeries. The petitioners, Jose Carandang and Benita Carandang, filed a complaint for cancellation and nullification of the documents with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna, claiming that the documents were forgeries. The Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., one of the respondents, argued that the CFI of Laguna did not have jurisdiction over the case because the bank was under receivership by the Central Bank of the Philippines.
The CFI of Laguna initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the promissory note and mortgage deed null and void. However, upon a motion for reconsideration by the Central Bank, the CFI reversed its decision and declared itself without jurisdiction over the case. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is the jurisdiction of the court to hear the complaint for cancellation and nullification of the promissory note and mortgage deed. The petitioners argue that the...