Case Digest (G.R. No. 244422)
Facts:
Heirs of Aniolina Vda. de Sebua, namely: Immaculada S. Magsumbol, Glenn H. Sebua, Joseph H. Sebua, Mary Ann S. Villanueva, Ma. Nema H. Sebua and Exan S. Vibat v. Feliciana Bravante, G.R. No. 244422, July 06, 2022, the Supreme Court First Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Heirs of Aniolina Vda. de Sebua) sued respondent Feliciana Bravante in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Surallah, South Cotabato, in Civil Case No. 989 by filing a Complaint for Redemption, Recovery of Possession, Damages and Attorney’s Fees on August 6, 2009, seeking to redeem and recover possession of Cadastral Lot No. 1525‑E (the subject property), a 16,000‑sq.m. parcel in Barangay Malaya, Banga, South Cotabato. The dispute arose from a series of loans in the 1980s involving petitioners’ then‑husband Exequeil (also spelled Exequiel) who allegedly mortgaged the property in favor of respondent’s husband, Julian Bravante, and later dealt with respondent after Julian’s death.
At trial the RTC found that the parties’ transactions, although appearing as sales or memoranda, in substance constituted an equitable mortgage: the parties intended to secure a debt and the produce of the land had been applied as interest; the RTC therefore allowed petitioners to redeem the property by returning P30,000 to respondent and awarded P20,000 in expenses and P10,000 in attorney’s fees. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration at the RTC was denied.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City (CA‑G.R. CV No. 03974‑MIN). The CA, however, partly granted respondent’s appeal and dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of cause of action, finding that petitioners’ sole witness (Joseph H. Sebua) testified largely to hearsay and that respondent likewise failed to establish clearly that petitioners had waived their rights to the property; consequently the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and declined to ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in discounting the probative value of petitioners’ witness testimony and other evidence such that dismissal for lack of cause of action was proper?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to recognize circumstances that give rise to the presumption that the parties’ transactions constituted an equitable mortgage under Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that respondent rebutted any presumption of equitable mortgage and thereby e...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)