Title
Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI Bank
Case
G.R. No. 195540
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2013
Petitioner failed to redeem mortgaged properties after foreclosure; SC upheld constitutionality of R.A. No. 8791, ruling redemption period expired and attempt unauthorized.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 184843)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Mortgage Execution and Foreclosure
    • On November 29, 1985, Goldenway Merchandising Corporation (petitioner) executed a real estate mortgage over properties in Valenzuela City (TCT Nos. T-152630, T-151655, T-214528) securing a ₱2,000,000 loan from Equitable PCI Bank (respondent).
    • After petitioner’s default, respondent extrajudicially foreclosed on December 13, 2000; properties sold to respondent for ₱3,500,000; Certificate of Sale issued January 26, 2001 and registered February 16, 2001.
  • Redemption Attempts and Initial Complaint
    • March 8–12, 2001: Petitioner’s counsel tendered a check for ₱3,500,000 and sought to redeem but was informed redemption was no longer possible due to registration of the Certificate of Sale; new titles in respondent’s name issued March 9, 2001.
    • December 7, 2001: Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages, asserting applicability of the one-year redemption period under Act No. 3135, challenging the shorter three-month period for juridical persons under RA 8791, and alleging failure to provide a statement of account.
  • Trial and Appellate Proceedings
    • RTC (Jan. 8, 2007): Dismissed petitioner’s complaint and respondent’s counterclaim; held redemption was untimely and unauthorized; noted constitutional issue not raised in trial.
    • CA (Nov. 19, 2010; Resolution Jan. 31, 2011): Affirmed RTC; applied Section 47, RA 8791; found petitioner failed to establish unconstitutionality and that the shortened redemption period governs juridical persons.

Issues:

  • Applicability of Section 47, RA 8791’s shortened redemption period to a mortgage executed in 1985 but foreclosed after RA 8791’s effectivity.
  • Whether Section 47 violates the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.
  • Whether Section 47 violates equal protection by treating juridical persons differently.
  • Whether RA 8791 should be applied retroactively over the special law (Act No. 3135).

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.