Case Digest (G.R. No. 153802) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank (petitioner) and Miguela C. Dailo (respondent). Miguela and Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married on August 8, 1967. During their conjugal partnership, they purchased a house and lot located in Barangay San Francisco, San Pablo City, Laguna, taxed under Assessment of Real Property No. 94-051-2802. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed only in favor of Marcelino as vendee, excluding Miguela's name.
On December 1, 1993, Marcelino executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Lilibeth Gesmundo, authorizing her to obtain a loan of ₱300,000.00 from Homeowners Bank, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage on the subject property. This transaction occurred without Miguela’s knowledge or consent. When the loan matured and remained unpaid, Homeowners initiated extrajudicial foreclosure. After the one-year redemption period lapsed, Homeowners consolidated ownership of the property by executing an Affidavit of Consolidatio
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 153802) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Parties
- Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married on August 8, 1967.
- During their marriage, they purchased a house and lot in Barangay San Francisco, San Pablo City, Laguna, from Sandra Dalida.
- The property was declared for tax purposes under Assessment of Real Property No. 94-051-2802.
- The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed solely in favor of the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr., excluding respondent.
- Loan and Mortgage Transaction
- On December 1, 1993, Marcelino executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Lilibeth Gesmundo authorizing her to obtain a loan from Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank.
- Gesmundo obtained a loan of ₱300,000.00 from petitioner, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over the subject property.
- These transactions were conducted without the knowledge or consent of respondent.
- Default and Foreclosure
- The loan remained unpaid at maturity.
- Petitioner initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings on the property, culminating in a Certificate of Sale issued in favor of petitioner as the highest bidder.
- After one year without redemption, petitioner consolidated ownership by executing an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and a Deed of Absolute Sale on June 6, 1996.
- Death of Marcelino and Subsequent Events
- Marcelino died on December 20, 1995.
- Respondent discovered petitioner had employed Roldan Brion to clean the property and that her Ford sedan was destroyed by fire caused by Brion’s negligence.
- Respondent filed Civil Case No. SP-2222 (97) to nullify the mortgage, the certificate of sale, affidavit of consolidation, deed of sale, and to seek reconveyance, preliminary injunction, and damages.
- Trial Court Decision
- The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, declaring the mortgage and related documents null and void for lack of consent per Article 124 of the Family Code.
- The court ordered reconveyance of the property to respondent.
- The court also awarded damages totaling ₱100,000.00 for destruction of respondent’s car, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages, along with costs of suit.
- Petitioner’s counterclaim was dismissed.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the property was conjugal in nature.
- The mortgage was declared void for lack of consent of respondent.
- Petitioner was held liable for damages caused by the acts of its employee, Brion.
- However, the Court of Appeals deleted the awards for damages and attorney’s fees for lack of basis.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- Petitioner filed a petition for review questioning:
- The validity of the mortgage as to Marcelino’s undivided share.
- Whether the conjugal partnership is liable for the loan obtained by Marcelino that allegedly benefited the family.
Issues:
- Whether the mortgage constituted by the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr. on the conjugal property is valid as to his undivided share without the consent of the spouse.
- Whether the conjugal partnership is liable for the payment of the loan obtained by Marcelino, given that it allegedly redounded to the benefit of the family.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)