Case Digest (G.R. No. 143375)
Facts:
This case involves the spouses Maximo Landrito, Jr. and Pacita Edgalani, as petitioners against the spouses Benjamin San Diego and Carmencita San Diego, as well as the ex-officio sheriff and clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, and the Register of Deeds in Makati City, as respondents. The events transpired in July 1990 when the petitioners secured a loan of ₱350,000 from respondent Carmencita San Diego, which was secured by a real estate mortgage on their property in Bayanan, Muntinlupa, Rizal. Subsequently, they received an additional loan of ₱1,000,000, secured via an "Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage" signed on September 13, 1991, with stipulated conditions that debts would be payable within six months and that default could trigger foreclosure. By April 27, 1993, the petitioners had defaulted and received a final demand notification, with their debt amounting to ₱1,950,000. On June 30, 1993, after unsuccessful collection efforts, Carmencita
Case Digest (G.R. No. 143375)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioners, spouses Maximo Landrito, Jr. and Pacita Landrito, obtained a loan and subsequently additional financing from respondent Carmencita San Diego.
- In July 1990, petitioners took a loan of P350,000.00 and executed a deed of real estate mortgage over their parcel of land in Bayanan, Muntinlupa, Rizal (TCT No. [432281] S-21000) as security for the loan.
- Later, petitioners secured an additional loan of P1,000,000.00, with an “Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage” executed on 13 September 1991 which stipulated a six-month period from 16 September 1991 for repayment.
- Default and Foreclosure Proceedings
- Petitioners defaulted on their payment obligations despite having made substantial payments previously.
- Respondent Carmencita San Diego sent a final notice of demand on 27 April 1993 demanding settlement, with the amount then totaling P1,950,000.00.
- On 30 June 1993, having received no payment and following repeated demands, respondent initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings by filing a petition with the Office of the Clerk of Court and the Ex-Officio Sheriff of RTC-Makati.
- Notice and Auction Sale
- A Notice of Sheriff’s Sale was sent on 06 July 1993, announcing that the mortgaged property would be sold in a public auction scheduled for 11 August 1993 at 10:00 AM.
- The public auction was duly held on 11 August 1993, at which the property was sold to respondent Carmencita San Diego as the highest bidder for P2,000,000.00, as evidenced by the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale issued on 07 October 1993.
- Registration and Redemption Period
- On 29 October 1993, respondent San Diego caused the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale with the Office of the Register of Deeds, Makati City, with inscription on the dorsalside of the petitioners’ TCT.
- Under Act No. 3135, petitioners were allowed a one-year period from the registration date (effectively until 31 October 1994, considering the weekend adjustment) to redeem the foreclosed property.
- Petitioners failed to redeem the property within the prescribed redemption period.
- Petition for Annulment and Dismissal
- On 09 November 1994, petitioners filed a complaint before the RTC-Makati seeking annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale, alleging:
- The foreclosure and auction sale were null and void due to non-compliance with notice and publication requirements under Act 3135.
- The foreclosure exceeded the amount secured by the mortgage (i.e., the foreclosure was for an amount supposedly bloated from the original P1,000,000.00 to P1,950,000.00).
- The application for consolidation of title was premature due to an alleged extension of the redemption period by respondent Benjamin San Diego.
- Respondents countered with a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that petitioners’ failure to act timely – specifically, their neglect to exercise the redeeming right within the stipulated period – resulted in a waiver of any claim.
- Procedural History and Appellate Rulings
- The RTC dismissed petitioners’ complaint on 13 January 1995 on grounds of laches and waiver, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its decision dated 12 December 1997.
- Petitioners raised further arguments on appeal, contending that:
- The foreclosure was illegal because the amount stated in the foreclosure documents improperly doubled the mortgage debt.
- Their complaint was not a plea for redemption per se but for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure conducted ab initio.
- The statement of account (Annex “E”) attached to the complaint should have been given probative value even at the pleading stage.
- Ultimately, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in the resolution dated 10 March 1998, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Timeliness and Laches
- Whether petitioners’ delay in redeeming the foreclosed property constituted laches, thereby barring their claim.
- Whether the period of redemption was properly computed from the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale.
- Validity of the Extrajudicial Foreclosure
- Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale are valid when the foreclosed amount allegedly exceeds that provided in the original mortgage document.
- Whether the foreclosure proceedings complied with the requirements of notice, publication, and statutory limitations under Act No. 3135, as amended.
- Nature of the Petition
- Whether the petition should be considered as a complaint for redemption or rather as a suit for annulment of the foreclosure sale.
- Whether the extension allegedly granted by respondent Benjamin San Diego should be recognized as a valid extension of the redemption period.
- Evidentiary Issues
- Whether the statement of account attached as Annex “E” could be given admissible and probative value despite being attached only at the pleading stage.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)