Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Office of the President
Case
G.R. No. 104528
Decision Date
Jan 18, 1996
PNB foreclosed lots bought by innocent buyers; SC upheld retroactive application of P.D. 957, protecting buyers' rights over mortgagee's claims, ensuring social justice.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 104528)

Facts:

  • Parties
    • Petitioner: Philippine National Bank (PNB), mortgagee of subdivision lots.
    • Respondents: Private buyers on installment (Alfonso Maglaya, Angelina Maglaya P. Reyes, et al.) from Marikina Village, Inc., represented by attorney-in-fact.
  • Transactional Background
    • Private respondents entered into land purchase agreements with Marikina Village, Inc., paid installments, and built houses, unaware of any encumbrance.
    • On December 18, 1975, the subdivision developer mortgaged the same lots to PNB and later defaulted.
    • PNB foreclosed the mortgage and became highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, acquiring title over the lots.
  • Administrative and Executive Proceedings
    • HLURB Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) Decision (Oct. 28, 1988): PNB may only collect remaining amortizations due under respondents’ agreements and cannot demand full payments anew.
    • Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Affirmation (May 2, 1989): Upheld the OAALA decision.
    • Office of the President Resolution (Mar. 10, 1992): Invoked P.D. 957 and concurred with HLURB, ruling PNB must accept remaining payments.
  • Supreme Court Petition
    • PNB filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, challenging the Office of the President’s Resolution.
    • PNB invoked Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 but the Supreme Court granted direct review in the interest of speedy justice.

Issues:

  • Retroactivity of P.D. 957
    • Whether P.D. 957 (“Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree”), enacted July 12, 1976, applies to a mortgage contract executed on December 18, 1975.
  • Privity of Contracts
    • Whether PNB, as a stranger to the land purchase agreements between respondents and the subdivision developer, can be compelled to accept respondents’ remaining amortizations and issue titles.

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.