Title
Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Marquez
Case
G.R. No. 147964
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2004
Marquez purchased a townhouse from TSE, which mortgaged the property to FEBTC without HLURB approval. Foreclosure ensued; HLURB ruled the mortgage void for Marquez’s lot, upheld by SC, protecting buyers under PD 957.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222469)

Applicable Law

The primary law applicable to the case is Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957) which regulates the sale of subdivision lots and condominiums in the Philippines. Specifically, Section 18 of PD 957 outlines the requirement that no mortgage on any unit or lot shall be executed by the developer without prior written approval from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

Background Facts

Respondent Marquez entered into a Contract to Sell with Transamerican Sales and Exposition (TSE) on March 13, 1989, for a townhouse unit in Diliman, Quezon City, at a total cost of PHP 800,000. Subsequently, TSE secured a loan from FEBTC amounting to PHP 7,650,000, mortgaging the property that included Marquez's unit. Due to TSE's default, FEBTC foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the property. Marquez, having already paid PHP 600,000, halted further payments when he learned of the foreclosure.

Proceedings Before the HLURB

On January 29, 1991, Marquez initiated a case against TSE with the HLURB to compel the completion of his townhouse and declare the mortgage with FEBTC invalid, alleging it violated Section 18 of PD 957. The HLURB’s Office of Appeals, Adjudication, and Legal Affairs ruled in favor of Marquez on November 11, 1991, declaring the mortgage unenforceable against him and ordering that he be notified of the mortgage effectively.

Appeals and Rulings

FEBTC appealed the HLURB decision, but the Board of Commissioners affirmed the ruling on July 18, 1994. Subsequently, the Office of the President upheld this decision. Finally, FEBTC appealed to the Court of Appeals, which identified procedural failures regarding the certification against forum shopping submitted by FEBTC.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals noted that FEBTC should have been aware of the ongoing subdivision development, suggesting negligence in verifying whether the required approvals had been obtained. They ruled that the mortgage was void concerning Marquez, and the appellate court affirmed the HLURB's position but also noted procedural discrepancies in FEBTC's appeal.

Issues Raised

The following critical issues arose for consideration:

  1. Whether the mortgage contract violated Section 18 of PD 957, thereby rendering it void as to third parties.
  2. Assuming a violation occurred, whether the HLURB's remedy was proper.
  3. Whether the absence of a notary's signature on the certification against forum shopping was grounds for dismissing the appeal.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court found the appeal partly meritorious, validating the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the mortgage was indeed void due to non-compliance with Section 18 of PD 957, affirming that the law serves to protect buyers and prevent developers from mortgaging properties without buyers' awareness. The Court concluded that FEBTC’s failure to conduct due diligence and its reliance on TSE's representations constituted negligence, thus eliminating its claim of being an i

...continue reading

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