Case Digest (G.R. No. 210286)
Facts:
Welbilt Construction Corp., Wack Wack Condominium Corp., and Spouses Eugenio Juan Gonzalez and Matilde Gonzalez v. Heirs of Cresenciano C. De Castro, G.R. No. 210286, July 23, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are the developer (Welbilt Construction Corp.), the condominium management body (Wack Wack Condominium Corp.), and unit owners (Spouses Eugenio Juan and Matilde Gonzalez). Respondents are the heirs of the late Cresenciano C. De Castro, the registered owner of Condominium Unit No. 802 (subject property) covered by Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 2826.
As of July 31, 1986, De Castro allegedly owed assessment dues of P79,905.41. Pursuant to Section 4 of the project’s Master Deed, petitioners annotated a lien for unpaid assessments on the back of CCT No. 2826 on August 14, 1986. When the dues remained unpaid, petitioners filed an application for extra-judicial foreclosure with the Office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Pasig City on October 27, 1986; notice was posted and published, and De Castro received a copy on January 29, 1987. A public auction was held on February 10, 1987; petitioners were the highest bidders at P88,809.94, a certificate of sale issued that day, and the sale was registered with the Register of Deeds on April 2, 1987. De Castro did not redeem.
When asked to surrender his owner’s duplicate of CCT No. 2826, De Castro filed a petition for annulment of the foreclosure proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), asserting among other things that petitioners lacked legal personality or special authority to foreclose, that the annotation and extra-judicial proceedings were irregular, and that the assessments were excessive. Petitioners countered that the foreclosure was lawful under the Master Deed and By-Laws and that De Castro had been given due notice but did not oppose the sale. De Castro died in February 1992; his heirs were substituted as respondents.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211, in a March 31, 2009 decision, dismissed De Castro’s petition and upheld the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure (thus effectively validating the sale). The Court of Appeals (CA), however, in a September 30, 2013 decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 93366, reversed and set aside the RTC decision and the foreclosure, holding that petitioners failed to prove they had the special authority to extra-judicially foreclose and relying on First M...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring the extra-judicial foreclosure of Condominium Unit No. 802 null and void on the ground that petitioners lacked sufficient authority to f...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)