Title
Equitable PCI Bank vs. Ku
Case
G.R. No. 142950
Decision Date
Mar 26, 2001
A property mortgaged by Rosita Ku was foreclosed after default. Her father, Ku Giok Heng, lost an ejectment case, and the Supreme Court ruled Rosita, though not a party, was bound by the decision as his daughter, upholding eviction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142950)

Applicable Law

This case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision was rendered in 2001.

Factual Background

The case revolves around an ejectment suit initiated by Equitable PCI Bank against Ku Giok Heng, the father of Rosita Ku, who was not made a party to the initial ejectment proceedings. Rosita Ku argued that her exclusion from the case constituted a violation of her right to due process. The property in question was mortgaged to the bank by Noddy Dairy Products, Inc., which failed to repay its loan, leading to the property’s foreclosure. After the foreclosure, the bank was issued a Certificate of Sale and subsequently acquired the title to the property.

Lower Court Proceedings

In May 1989, a Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) action for ejectment against Ku Giok Heng was filed due to non-payment of rent. The MeTC ruled in favor of the bank, ordering Ku Giok Heng to vacate the premises. Ku Giok Heng did not appeal this decision. Instead, both he and Rosita Ku lodged a case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the MeTC ruling, which the RTC dismissed for lack of merit. The RTC's dismissal was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), where Rosita Ku argued that she had been denied due process as she was not a party in the initial suit.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals sided with Rosita Ku, emphasizing that her absence as a party to the ejectment case precluded the enforcement of the MeTC’s ruling against her. This decision prompted Equitable PCI Bank to elevate the case for consideration by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court centered on whether a person can be evicted pursuant to a judgment rendered against another party when they were not joined in the initial action. Generally, a judgment binds only the parties involved in that proceeding. However, judgments in ejectment cases have broader implications if the ejectment involves parties or persons deemed to be in a position analogous to that of the defendant. The Court recognized that as a daughter of the defendant, Rosita Ku could be affected by the outcome of the ejectment case because of familial ties and her potential occupancy of the property in question.

Discussion on Procedural Objections

Equitable PCI Bank objected to the timing of the appeal, claiming that the CA decision was received later than the date indicated, which impacted the timeliness of their petition. Further, the bank's representative submitted an affidavit claiming an honest error regarding the date of receipt. The Court assessed whether the service of documents upon an agent, who wa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.