Case Digest (G.R. No. 211232)
Facts:
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Spouses Efren and Lolita Soriano, G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari was filed under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 18, 2013 and Resolution dated February 4, 2014 in CA G.R. CV No. 97687, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 01, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Decision dated February 9, 2011 in Case No. 6821.Plaintiffs-respondents Spouses Efren and Lolita Soriano sold Coca‑Cola products in Tuguegarao. Around 1999, respondents allege that petitioner, through its agent Reynaldo C. Cipriano, required security for continued deliveries; the spouses handed over two certificates of title and signed a document after being assured it was a mere formality and would not be notarized. When they later stopped selling Coca‑Cola products and demanded return of their titles, petitioner did not return them; respondents discovered their land had been mortgaged to petitioner and that the mortgage had been foreclosed.
Respondents filed a complaint to annul the sheriff’s foreclosure sale, alleging they never signed a mortgage in Ilagan, Isabela, were never notified of the foreclosure sale, had no indebtedness, and that their signatures were procured through assurances the document would not be notarized. Petitioner countered that respondents admitted signing the real estate mortgage (REM) and that failure to appear before the notary does not void the mortgage.
The RTC nullified the REM and the foreclosure sale and ordered return of titles and damages. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed in toto, finding defects in the REM: the mortgagors did not acknowledge the deed before the Clerk of Court at notarization, only one witness signed (instead of two), and the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly declare the real estate mortgage (REM) invalid for noncompliance with the formal requisites of Section 112 of P.D. No. 1529 despite the parties’ execution and registration history?
- Did respondents’ admissions that they signed the REM preclude their claim of forgery or fraud such that petitioner proved the REM’s due execution and genuineness?
- Is the extrajudicial foreclosure sale valid notwithstanding...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)