Case Digest (G.R. No. 150393)
Facts:
Luzon Development Bank v. Spouses Bartolome and Zenaida Angeles, G.R. No. 150393, July 31, 2006, was decided by the Supreme Court Second Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Luzon Development Bank (petitioner or LDB) extended a loan of P500,000 to respondents Spouses Bartolome and Zenaida Angeles in June 1983, secured by a real estate mortgage on their house and lot in North Greenhills, San Juan. After the spouses defaulted, LDB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage; in August 1984 LDB emerged as highest bidder at the public auction, a sheriff's certificate of sale was issued to it, and the certificate was registered on February 4, 1985. LDB contends the one‑year statutory redemption period expired on February 4, 1986 and title consolidated in its name thereafter.
Respondents maintain that before the one‑year redemption period lapsed they negotiated to repurchase the property and arrived at terms fixing the redemption price at P871,182.78, including a downpayment schedule and a three‑year amortization at a 32% effective annual rate with quarterly adjustment. Respondents allege they immediately paid P100,000, later paid P125,000 and P100,000, and attempted to pay an additional P200,000 which petitioner refused to accept; later petitioner purportedly demanded resale at prevailing market value. Respondents deposited P200,000 in petitioner’s bank, bringing their total payments to P525,000 toward the agreed redemption price.
In 1988 LDB filed a petition for a writ of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Pasig City (LRC Case No. R‑4039), asserting it had become absolute owner after expiration of the redemption period. The RTC denied the petition and held that the parties entered into a binding agreement extending the redemption period and fixing the redemption price; it directed respondents to pay the balance of P346,182.78 within 1½ years in ten monthly installments at 32% effective annual interest, and denied issuance of the writ. LDB appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC, finding LDB had "unconditi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the parties validly enter into a new contract extending the redemption period and fixing the redemption price?
- Is petitioner entitled to a writ of possession of the subject ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)