Case Digest (G.R. No. 248743)
Facts:
LPL Greenhills Condominium Corporation v. Catharina Brouwer, G.R. No. 248743, September 07, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court (Caguioa, Chairperson, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurring).Petitioners are LPL Greenhills Condominium Corporation (LPL), Spouses Clemartin and Maria Angelita Arboleda, Mario Antoni Salazar, and Lauro S. Leviste II; respondent is Catharina Brouwer, represented by attorney-in-fact Manfred de Koning. Respondent owned two condominium units in LPL Greenhills Condominium and defaulted on association dues and assessments. LPL caused notices of assessment to be annotated on the Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) and subsequently filed two separate petitions for extrajudicial foreclosure under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 4726 (the Condominium Act) and its Master Deed and By‑Laws. Notices of sale were posted and published; sheriffs conducted public auctions on October 15, 2008, resulting in certificates of sale issued to the successful bidders (Salazar and Leviste for Unit 16‑I; the Arboledas for Unit 16‑J) and registered on November 28, 2008.
Respondent, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 264, Pasig City (stationed in San Juan City), seeking declaration of nullity of the foreclosure proceedings and certificates of sale, quieting of title, and damages. She alleged, inter alia, that LPL lacked special authority under Act No. 3135 (as amended by Act No. 4118) and that there was no board resolution authorizing extrajudicial foreclosure nor proper notice. Petitioners argued that Section 20 of the Condominium Act obviated the need for a separate special authority and relied on Chateau de Baie Condominium Corp. v. Spouses Moreno and later cases.
On December 8, 2015, the RTC ruled for respondent: it declared the two extrajudicial foreclosure sales and corresponding certificates of sale null and void, ordered cancellation of the annotations on the CCTs, and declared respondent still the registered owner; it also awarded attorney’s fees. Petitioners moved for reconsideration (or remand), which the RTC denied, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated March 29, 2019 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 107139), the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The CA agreed that Section 20 permits enforcement of liens by judicial or extrajudicial foreclosure but held that LPL still had to prove special auth...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the extrajudicial foreclosure sales of respondent’s condominium units were null and void?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declining to find that respondent’s counsel lost legal personality to represent respondent following the death of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)