Case Digest (G.R. No. 150730)
Facts:
The case is Mila Sales Llanto, et al. v. Ernesto Alzona, et al., G.R. No. 150730, January 31, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are eleven children (the Sales siblings) of Bernardo and Maria Sales; respondents are Ernesto Alzona, Dominador Alzona, Estela Sales Pelongco, and the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna.Maria Sales was the registered owner of a 202‑sq. m. parcel under OCT No. P‑3225 (free patent) located in Banlic, Cabuyao, Laguna; she died on August 27, 1986. On January 29, 1990, a mortgage contract was purportedly executed in favor of Dominador Alzona, allegedly by Maria (who was already deceased) and Bernardo; Estela Sales Pelongco signed as an instrumental witness. The mortgage was foreclosed for nonpayment and at the mortgage sale of December 20, 1990 Ernesto Alzona was the highest bidder and received a certificate of sale; a Consolidation of Ownership followed on January 22, 1992 and TCT No. T‑261853 was issued in Ernesto’s name while OCT P‑3225 was cancelled. Petitioners inscribed an adverse claim on December 17, 1992.
On October 15, 1993 petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna, a complaint for Annulment of Mortgage and of Auction Sale, with Reconveyance of Title and Damages against the Alzonas, Pelongco (Estela), and the Register of Deeds. Estela failed to answer and was declared in default; the Alzonas and the Register of Deeds filed answers and counterclaims. After trial the RTC rendered judgment dismissing petitioners’ complaint against Dominador and Ernesto Alzona, taxing costs against the plaintiffs and awarding attorney’s fees to the defendants; it ruled in favor of petitioners against Estela for attorney’s fees and moral damages; and dismissed the complaint against the Register of Deeds for lack of evidence.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 19, 2001 the CA affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the attorneys’ fees awarded to petitioners...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ credibility findings regarding Ernesto Alzona’s testimony binding on the Supreme Court?
- Were respondents Ernesto and Dominador Alzona mortgagees in good faith entitled to protection such that the mortgage and foreclosure sale should not be annulled despite the mortgagors no...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)