Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4637)
Facts:
Jose A. Luna v. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-4637. June 30, 1952, the Supreme Court, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.On September 25, 1948, Jose A. Luna (mortgagor) executed a deed styled a "Chattel Mortgage" in favor of Trinidad Reys (mortgagee), conveying as security a house of mixed materials in Barrio San Nicolas, Pasig, Rizal, to secure a promissory note for P1,500 with 12% interest; the document was registered in the Register of Deeds of Rizal. When Luna defaulted on the note, Reys requested the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal to sell the property at public auction; the sheriff notified the mortgagor and proceeded with the sale, issuing a certificate of sale on May 28, 1949, whereby Reys became purchaser for an amount covering the indebtedness, interest, and costs.
After the statutory redemption period lapsed without repurchase by Luna, Reys demanded possession but Luna refused. On October 13, 1950, Reys filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal invoking Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, seeking an order authorizing the sheriff to place her in possession. At the hearing on October 25, 1950, Luna opposed on grounds that the instrument was a chattel mortgage (not a real estate mortgage), that Act No. 3135 applies only to real estate mortgages and requires an express power of sale, and that the deed lacked any express authorization for extra-judicial foreclosure or sale.
The trial court (Court of First Instance of Rizal), overruled Luna's opposition and granted Reys' petition, directing the provincial sheriff to place Reys in immediate ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance act in excess of jurisdiction in granting Reys' petition to be placed in possession after the sheriff's sale?
- Was the sheriff's extra-judicial sale valid under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, given that the instrument was designated a chattel mortgage and lacked an express power of sale?
- If not valid under Act No. 3135, could the sale nonetheless be sustained under the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), Sec. 14, and was it necessary for the Court to ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)