Case Digest (G.R. No. 205487)
Facts:
Orion Savings Bank v. Shigekane Suzuki, G.R. No. 205487, November 12, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.In August 2003, respondent Shigekane Suzuki, a Japanese national, negotiated through Ms. Helen Soneja to acquire Unit No. 536 (CCT No. 18186) and Parking Slot No. 42 (CCT No. 9118) at Cityland Pioneer, Mandaluyong City, allegedly owned by Yung Sam Kang, a Korean national and SRRV holder. Suzuki paid P100,000 as reservation (BPI Check No. 83349 on Aug. 5, 2003) and P2,700,000 (BPI Check No. 83350 on Aug. 21, 2003), and the parties executed a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 26, 2003. Suzuki took possession and began renovating the unit.
Soon Suzuki demanded delivery of the original titles but learned that the physical certificates remained with Alexander Perez, Orion’s loans officer. Suzuki caused annotations: an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on CCT No. 18186 (Sept. 8, 2003) and on CCT No. 9118 (Oct. 28, 2003). Orion (through Perez) refused to surrender the titles, later informing Suzuki (Oct. 9, 2003 letter) that Kang had executed a Dacion en Pago in Orion’s favor allegedly dated February 2 (or 6), 2003 and that Orion paid taxes on October 15, 2003 when it purportedly registered the dacion.
Suzuki filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Kang and Orion on January 27, 2004. At pre-trial the parties admitted relevant facts, including that Kang was registered owner as of Aug. 26, 2003; the earlier Orion mortgage annotation (Entry No. 66432/C-10186 of Feb. 2, 1999) had been cancelled on June 16, 2000; the dacion was not annotated on the CCTs before Suzuki’s purchase; and Orion only paid taxes for the dacion on Oct. 15, 2003.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 213, Mandaluyong City, rendered judgment on June 29, 2009 in favor of Suzuki, finding him an innocent purchaser for value and ordering Orion to deliver CCT Nos. 18186 and 9118 and awarding moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs against Orion. Orion appealed.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision dated August 23, 2012 (CA-G.R. CV No. 94104), partially granted Orion’s appeal by affirming Suzuki’s right to the properties but deleting the awards of moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; the CA held that the PRA annotation served only as a warning to an SRRV holder. The CA denied Orion’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated January 25, 2013.
Orion filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging among...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court re-examine factual findings of the lower courts in a Rule 45 petition when apparent incongruence or mistaken inference exists?
- Does Korean law on spousal consent, as invoked by Orion, invalidate Kang’s Deed of Absolute Sale to Suzuki?
- Was Suzuki a purchaser in good faith entitled to prevail over Orion?
- Did Orion prove the existence and due execution of the Dacion en Pago so as to prevail under the rule on double sale (Art. 1544, New Civil Code)?
- Does the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) annotation on CCT No. 181...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)