Case Digest (G.R. No. 184301)
Facts:
GE Money Bank, Inc. (Formerly Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc.) v. Spouses Victorino M. Dizon and Rosalina L. Dizon, G.R. No. 184301, March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On September 18, 1991, respondents Spouses Victorino M. Dizon and Rosalina L. Dizon obtained a P100,000 loan from Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank, predecessor of petitioner GE Money Bank, Inc., and mortgaged two lots in Sampaloc, Manila (TCT No. 164193). The spouses defaulted; a Statement of Foreclosure of March 26, 1993 showed an outstanding liability of P143,049.54. The bank conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure and public auction on September 13, 1993; the bank was the highest bidder at P181,956.72 and the Certificate of Sale was registered with the Register of Deeds on October 18, 1993, creating a one-year statutory redemption period ending October 18, 1994.
During the redemption period the Spouses paid a total of P90,000 (payments on August 10, September 13 and October 17, 1994). The bank accepted those partial payments but later consolidated title and, on July 6, 1995, caused issuance of TCT No. 222186 in its name. On April 3, 1998 (amended April 14, 1998) the Spouses filed Civil Case No. 98-88228 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Manila, seeking redemption and nullification of consolidation and TCT No. 222186.
After trial the RTC, in an April 29, 2004 Decision, sided with the Spouses and allowed redemption on the basis that plaintiffs had substantially complied and that estoppel and liberal construction favored redemption; it computed a remaining balance of P113,791.52 (auction price plus 1% per month interest for 12 months less payments) and directed issuance of a title in plaintiffs’ names. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in a May 13, 2008 Decision, finding substantial compliance and estoppel because the bank had accepted partial payments and allegedly assured the Spouses they could still redeem. The CA issued a Resolution on August 27, 2008 that is part of the appealed rulings.
Petitioner bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging (1) the CA’s allowance of redemption after the statutory period; (2) the annulment and cancellation of the bank’s title before full redemption;...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Can respondents validly exercise the statutory right of redemption after the one‑year redemption period when they tendered only partial payment during that period?
- If respondents cannot validly redeem, was the Court of Appeals correct in annulling and canceling petitioner’s consolidated title and ordering reissuance of title in respondents’ names before respondents fully redeemed?
- Was it proper for the Court of Appeals to compute the redemption price on the basis of Section 6 of Act No. 3135 and to allow respondent...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)