Case Digest (G.R. No. 76245)
Facts:
In Juanita Ermitaao, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Isabelo Ermitaao, vs. Lailanie M. Paglas (G.R. No. 174436, January 23, 2013), petitioner Ermitaao leased to respondent Paglas on November 5, 1999, a 336‐square‐meter residential lot and house at No. 20 Columbia Street, Phase 1, Doña Vicenta Village, Davao City, for one year at ₱13,500 monthly with a ₱27,000 security deposit. Prior to the lease, Ermitaao had mortgaged the property to Charlie Yap in March 1999, and an extra-judicial foreclosure sale was registered on February 22, 2000, with Yap as purchaser. On June 1, 2000, Paglas bought the foreclosed property from Yap for ₱950,000, subject to Ermitaao’s one‐year right of redemption, and a deed of sale was executed. Ermitaao then filed suit to nullify the mortgage and the sheriff’s certificate of sale. On May 25, 2000, and March 25, 2001, Ermitaao demanded Paglas to vacate and pay rent, but Paglas ignored these. Ermitaao filed an unlawful detainer case with the Municipal TCase Digest (G.R. No. 76245)
Facts:
- Lease Agreement
- On November 5, 1999, petitioner Juanita Ermitaao, through her attorney-in-fact, leased to respondent Lailanie Paglas a 336 sqm residential lot and house at No. 20 Columbia St., Doña Vicenta Village, Davao City, for one year (Nov. 4, 1999–Nov. 4, 2000) at ₱13,500 monthly.
- Respondent paid a security deposit of ₱27,000 to cover unpaid rentals and damages.
- Mortgage and Foreclosure
- Sometime in March 1999, petitioner mortgaged the property in favor of Charlie Yap, which was foreclosed extrajudicially; Yap was the successful bidder, and the certificate of sale was registered on February 22, 2000.
- Sale to Respondent and Redemption Suit
- On June 1, 2000, respondent purchased the same property from Yap for ₱950,000 by deed of sale, expressly subject to petitioner’s right of redemption.
- Prior to this purchase, petitioner filed an action to nullify the mortgage and the sheriff’s provisional certificate of sale.
- Unlawful Detainer Proceedings
- Petitioner sent demand letters on May 25, 2000 and March 25, 2001, for unpaid rentals and vacation of premises; respondent ignored both.
- Petitioner filed unlawful detainer (MTCC Davao City, Aug. 13, 2001); MTCC Branch 6 dismissed the case on Nov. 26, 2001, awarding respondent ₱25,000 attorney’s fees and ₱2,000 appearance fee.
- RTC and CA Decisions
- On appeal, RTC Davao City (Feb. 14, 2003) affirmed the MTCC dismissal but deleted the fee awards and ordered respondent to pay ₱135,000 (10 months unpaid rent).
- CA (Sep. 8, 2004) affirmed the RTC but:
- Deleted the ₱135,000 rental award;
- Awarded respondent litigation expenses of ₱10,000 and attorney’s fees of ₱10,000;
- Denied petitioner’s reconsideration on Aug. 16, 2006.
- Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition assigning that the CA erred in:
- Dismissing the unlawful detainer on the ground a sheriff’s certificate of sale was issued;
- Declaring respondent a good-faith buyer despite notice of forgery;
- Awarding respondent attorney’s fees.
Issues:
- Did the CA err in dismissing the unlawful detainer suit on the basis that a sheriff’s final certificate of sale had been issued?
- Did the CA err in holding respondent a buyer in good faith despite being informed that the mortgage contract was forged?
- Did the CA err in awarding attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to respondent?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)