Case Digest (G.R. No. 174436)
Facts:
Juanita Ermitano v. Lailanie M. Paglas, G.R. No. 174436, January 23, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Juanita Ermitano, represented by her attorney-in-fact Isabelo Ermitano; respondent is Lailanie M. Paglas.On November 5, 1999, petitioner, through her representative, executed a one-year lease (commencing November 4, 1999) in favor of respondent covering a 336-square-meter lot and house at No. 20 Columbia St., Dona Vicenta Village, Davao City, at P13,500.00 monthly; respondent paid a P27,000.00 security deposit. Petitioner allegedly had earlier mortgaged the property to Charlie Yap, and an extrajudicial foreclosure was registered on February 22, 2000. Respondent negotiated with Yap’s brother and on June 1, 2000 bought the property from Yap for P950,000.00 by Deed of Sale, which expressly noted petitioner’s right of redemption still subsisted.
Before respondent’s purchase, petitioner filed an action to annul the mortgage and the sheriff’s provisional certificate of sale. Petitioner sent demand letters (May 25, 2000 and March 25, 2001) asking respondent to pay rent and vacate; respondent ignored them. On August 13, 2001 petitioner filed an unlawful detainer action in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City. The MTCC, Branch 6, dismissed the unlawful detainer on November 26, 2001 and awarded respondent P25,000.00 attorney’s fees and P2,000.00 appearance fee.
Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which on February 14, 2003 affirmed the MTCC’s dismissal but modified by deleting respondent’s award of attorney’s fees and ordering respondent to pay petitioner ten months’ unpaid rentals (P135,000.00), the RTC holding that petitioner retained the right to redeem and to rents pending redemption. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On September 8, 2004 the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 77617 affirmed the RTC with modifications: (a) it deleted respondent’s obligation to pay P135,000.00; (b) it awarded litigation expenses of P10,000.00; and (c) it reinstated attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00 (modifying the MTCC awards). The CA concluded respondent was a buyer in good faith entitled to rely on the foreclosure documents. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated August 16, 2006.
Petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising three assignments of error challenging (1) the CA...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the unlawful detainer case by treating the sheriff’s certificate of sale and foreclosure as valid, thereby denying petitioner possession?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding respondent was a buyer in good faith despite petitioner’s notice alleging the mortgage was forged?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to respondent ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)