Case Digest (G.R. No. 150773)
Facts:
Spouses David B. Carpo and Rechilda S. Carpo v. Eleanor Chua and Elma Dy Ng, G.R. Nos. 150773 & 153599, September 30, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.On 18 July 1995 petitioners David B. Carpo and Rechilda S. Carpo borrowed P175,000.00 from respondents Eleanor Chua and Elma Dy Ng, agreeing to pay interest at 6% per month; petitioners mortgaged their residence (TCT No. 23180) as security. After petitioners defaulted, respondents extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage; a public auction on 8 July 1996 awarded the property to respondents as sole bidders for P367,457.80. A certificate of sale issued on 5 September 1997 and TCT No. 29338 was issued in respondents’ names, but petitioners continued to occupy the property.
Respondents filed for a writ of possession in RTC Special Proceedings No. 98-1665; RTC Judge Ernesto A. Miguel ordered issuance of the writ on 23 March 1999. On 23 July 1999 petitioners filed Civil Case No. 99-4376 for annulment of the real estate mortgage and consequent foreclosure proceedings, tendering P257,197.26 with the court. In SP No. 98-1665 the RTC issued a temporary restraining order on 3 August 1999 and, by order dated 6 January 2000, suspended enforcement of the writ of possession pending final disposition of the civil case.
Respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 57297) assailing the RTC’s injunctions. Meanwhile, RTC Judge Filemon B. Montenegro dismissed Civil Case No. 99-4376 on 26 October 2001 as barred by prescription and laches, treating the complaint as one for annulment of a voidable contract subject to the four-year prescriptive period. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 150773 (the petition raising pure questions of law was elevated directly under Section 1, Rule 45). Respondents obtained a CA Decision dated 30 April 2002 annulling and setting asid...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of Civil Case No. 99-4376 by the RTC as barred by prescription and laches proper?
- Could the Court of Appeals properly entertain respondents’ special civil action for certiorari and mandamus as timely under Rule 65, and was its resolution of that petition correct?
- Is the stipulated interest rate of 6% per month void and, if so, does that nullity invalidate the principal loan obligation and the ancillary real estate mortgage?
- Is the issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure a ministerial act that ca...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)