Case Digest (G.R. No. 150107)
Facts:
In Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. (hereafter “Petitioner”) vs. Syndicated Management Group, Inc. (hereafter “SMGI”), decided on September 1, 2000 (G.R. No. 128567), the petitioner had obtained an ₱8.5 million loan from Intercon Fund Resource, Inc. (a credit institution) on October 19, 1989, evidenced by a real estate mortgage on four parcels in Makati City. Intercon assigned its mortgage rights to SMGI, which on the same date filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Civil Case No. 89-5424) a complaint for judicial foreclosure with preliminary injunction. On April 30, 1992, RTC Judge Guerrero rendered judgment under Rule 68, ordering petitioner to pay the principal, penalties, interest and attorney’s fees within 150 days from notice, failing which the mortgaged lands would be sold. Petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed for late docketing fees on June 29, 1993, and certiorari to this Court (G.R. No. 112044) was denied on December 13, 1993 andCase Digest (G.R. No. 150107)
Facts:
- Factual Background
- In October 1989, Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. (“petitioner”) obtained an ₱8.5 million loan from Intercon Fund Resource, Inc. (“Intercon”), secured by four parcels of land.
- Intercon assigned its mortgage rights to Syndicated Management Group, Inc. (“SMGI”); petitioner contested the assignment as ultra vires and disputed the computation of charges and interest.
- Procedural History
- On April 30, 1992, RTC Makati (Judge Guerrero) rendered judgment in favor of SMGI, ordering petitioner to pay the debt within 150 days or face sale of the mortgaged properties under execution.
- Petitioner’s appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 39243) was dismissed on June 29, 1993 for late docket fees; its SC petition (G.R. No. 112044) was denied December 13, 1993 and became final March 14, 1994.
- SMGI moved for execution; writ issued July 15, 1994; Notice of Sheriff’s Sale set for September 6, 1994; petitioner’s motion to quash was denied September 2, 1994.
- In CA-G.R. SP No. 35086, the Court of Appeals held the 150-day equity of redemption expired September 11, 1994; its Decision (Sept. 30, 1994) became final January 25, 1995.
- RTC confirmed the sale on February 10, 1995; Transfer Certificates of Title issued to SMGI. Petitioner then sought clarification and asserted, for the first time (May 2, 1995), a one-year statutory right to redeem under Sec. 78, RA 337.
- RTC, on July 21 and September 4, 1995, ruled that Sec. 78 applied (credit-institution mortgage) and granted petitioner until October 21, 1995 to redeem; SMGI’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
- SMGI petitioned the CA (G.R. No. 38747); on November 14, 1996 (Decision) and March 11, 1997 (Resolution), the CA set aside the July and September 1995 RTC orders. Petitioner filed the present SC petition (G.R. No. 128567).
Issues:
- Right of Redemption
- Did petitioner have a one-year statutory right of redemption under Section 78 of Republic Act No. 337?
- Equity vs. Statutory Right
- Was petitioner’s remedy limited to the 150-day equity of redemption under Rule 68 rather than the one-year statutory right?
- Entitlement to Possession
- Is SMGI entitled to a writ of possession following the confirmed sale and expiration of any redemption period?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)