Case Digest (G.R. No. 162333)
Facts:
Bienvenido C. Teoco and Juan C. Teoco, Jr. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 162333, December 22, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The registered owner of the subject parcels was Lydia T. Co, married to Ramon Co, who mortgaged the properties to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) to secure a P200,000 loan. The properties were sold to Metrobank in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Act No. 3135 on February 14, 1991; after one year and for failure to redeem, titles in the Co spouses’ names were cancelled and new titles were issued to Metrobank (TCT Nos. T-8482 and T-8493).
Metrobank filed a petition for a writ of possession on November 29, 1993. Because the spouses Co were abroad, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered summons by publication in January 1994. On May 17, 1994, intervenors Bienvenido C. Teoco and Juan C. Teoco, Jr. (the brothers Teoco) filed an answer-in-intervention claiming they had redeemed the properties within the statutory period and praying that Metrobank’s petition be dismissed and new titles be issued in their names. They deposited P356,297.57 with the RTC clerk; Metrobank refused the deposit alleging the amount was insufficient under Section 78 of the General Banking Act and that the Co spouses’ right of redemption was not validly assigned to the brothers Teoco (lacking authentication).
On July 22, 1997, the RTC dismissed Metrobank’s petition for a writ of possession, holding that the brothers Teoco had legally and effectively redeemed the properties by tendering P356,297.57 within the reglementary period, ordering cancellation of Metrobank’s titles and issuance of new titles to the brothers. The RTC also concluded it had no jurisdiction over the spouses Co due to defects in Metrobank’s mode of publication.
Metrobank appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 20, 2004 the CA reversed the RTC, finding that the brothers Teoco failed to redeem (the amount tendered was insufficient) and that the assignment of the right of redemption was not properly shown; the CA annulled the RTC decision and ordered issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Metrobank. The CA also relied on the fact the properties had been consolidated and registered in Metrobank’s name and treated the petition under ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the brothers Teoco effectively redeem the foreclosed properties within the reglementary one‑year period and was the amount they tendered sufficient?
- May Metrobank require payment not only of the original P200,000 but also of subsequent, unspecified advances allegedly covered by the mortgage?
- Was the spouses Co’s assignment of the right of redemption to the brothers Teoco valid and sufficiently proved despite foreign execution/authentication issues?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in annulling the RTC decision and order...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)