Title
Pena vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 91478
Decision Date
Feb 7, 1991
PAMBUSCO mortgaged properties to DBP, foreclosed, sold to Pena. Redemption rights assigned, contested; SC ruled board resolution, assignments void, reinstating trial court’s decision.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 126556)

Facts:

  • Mortgage, Foreclosure, and Initial Sale
    • Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. (PAMBUSCO) owned lots under TCT Nos. 4314–4316 and on January 3, 1962 mortgaged them to the Development Bank of the Philippines for ₱935,000.00.
    • The mortgage was foreclosed under Act No. 3135; on October 25, 1974 the lots were auctioned and awarded to Rosita Pena as highest bidder for ₱128,000.00. A certificate of sale was issued October 25 and registered October 29, 1974.
  • Assignment of Redemption Right and Subsequent Transfers
    • On November 19, 1974, three of PAMBUSCO’s five directors adopted a resolution assigning the corporation’s right of redemption over the foreclosed lots; on March 18, 1975, director Joaquin Briones executed a deed of assignment in favor of Marcelino Enriquez.
    • Enriquez redeemed the lots by paying ₱140,474.00 on August 15, 1975; a certificate of redemption was issued the same day.
    • On August 16/18, 1975, Enriquez sold the lots to spouses Rising T. Yap and Catalina Lugue for ₱140,000.00; that date also saw annotations of an attachment levy (Capitol Allied Trading), a pending consulta, and notices of assignment and redemption on the original titles.
    • On September 10, 1975, the Regional Trial Court (Branch III, Pampanga) ordered a stop to any registration of the assignment, redemption, and sale. On November 17, 1975, the Land Registration Commission conditionally permitted registration in Yap’s name upon presentation of duplicate titles.
    • The lots were finally registered in the Yap spouses’ names on June 16, 1978 (new TCT Nos. 148983-R to 148985-R), with the attachment levy noted; the consulta notice was removed. Civil Case No. 4310 (Dante Gutierrez, et al. vs. PAMBUSCO, et al.) was dismissed without prejudice in 1983.
    • Despite registration, Pena remained in possession. On December 15, 1978, the Yaps filed an ejectment suit seeking possession and unpaid rentals from October 1974; Pena answered, denying validity of Enriquez’s redemption and sale and asserting the assignment was void.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and Standing
    • Did the trial court lack jurisdiction to annul the PAMBUSCO board resolution and subsequent transfers because such intra-corporate disputes are under SEC jurisdiction?
    • Does Rosita Pena, not being a stockholder or officer of PAMBUSCO, have legal standing to challenge the board resolution and related documents?
  • Validity of Corporate Actions and Subsequent Transfers
    • Is the November 19, 1974 board resolution valid when only three of five directors attended (below the four-director quorum required by PAMBUSCO’s by-laws)?
    • Is the March 18, 1975 deed of assignment to Enriquez void or voidable for lack of corporate authority and absence of consideration?
    • Are the Yaps purchasers in good faith despite the trial court order enjoining registration and despite underlying corporate irregularities?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.