Title
Spouses Mendiola vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 159746
Decision Date
Jul 18, 2012
The Supreme Court denies annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure, ruling the appeal permissible but barred by res judicata.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 159746)

Facts:

  • Petitioners: Spouses Ramon Mendiola and Araceli N. Mendiola.
  • Respondents: Honorable Court of Appeals, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, and Tabangao Realty, Inc.
  • On July 31, 1985, Pilipinas Shell entered into a distribution agreement with Pacific Management & Development, owned by Ramon Mendiola.
  • To secure obligations, petitioners executed a real estate mortgage on August 1, 1985, covering their property in Parañaque, Rizal.
  • Following Pacific's default, Shell initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in April 1987.
  • The auction occurred on May 14, 1987, but the petitioners were unaware and later found their property sold to Tabangao Realty, Inc. for P670,000.00.
  • After applying the sale proceeds, a deficiency of P170,228.00 remained, leading Shell to file a collection suit against Ramon in the RTC of Manila (Civil Case No. 87-41852).
  • Ramon counterclaimed, asserting the foreclosure was invalid and in bad faith.
  • On March 22, 1988, petitioners filed a separate action in the RTC of Makati to annul the foreclosure (Civil Case No. 88-398).
  • Shell and Tabangao moved to dismiss the Makati case, citing the pendency of the Manila case, but the Makati RTC denied these motions.
  • The Manila RTC affirmed the validity of the foreclosure on July 22, 1994.
  • On February 3, 1998, the Makati RTC declared the foreclosure void due to lack of an actual auction and due process violations.
  • Shell's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
  • The CA denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the appeal and their motion for reconsideration, prompting the petitioners to file a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition lacked merit.
  • The appeal by Shell and Tabangao from the denial of their motion for reconsideratio...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure generally prohibits appeals from the denial of a motion for reconsideration, but this does not apply to final orders or judgments.
  • The denial of a motion for r...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.