Title
Home Bankers Savings and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 128354
Decision Date
Apr 26, 2005
Private respondents entered contracts to sell with TransAmerican for Quezon City properties. TransAmerican mortgaged the lots to Home Bankers without HLURB approval or buyers' knowledge. Upon foreclosure, private respondents sued, and the Court ruled the mortgage void, unenforceable, and binding on Home Bankers due to negligence and violation of P.D. No. 957.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128354)

Background of the Case

The case arises from a series of separate contracts to sell between the private respondents and the developer, TransAmerican Sales and Exposition, concerning specific parcels of land and associated townhouse units. The agreements stipulated that titles to the properties would be delivered free of liens upon full payment. Each respondent made payments but faced issues with the non-completion of their properties, leading to disputes concerning the mortgage executed by the developer without the consent of the buyers.

Mortgage and Foreclosure Proceedings

Engr. Jesus Garcia, along with his wife, secured a loan from the petitioner, using several lots (including those sold to the private respondents) as collateral, without the required approval from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The petitioner later foreclosed on the mortgage when the loan went into default. The foreclosure proceedings elicited complaints from the private respondents regarding the non-delivery of titles and completion of their units.

Initial Ruling by HLURB

The HLURB examined the claims, finding that due to the lack of written approval from HLURB for the mortgage, the mortgage was unenforceable and therefore ordered the cancellation of the mortgage and the certificate of sale in favor of the petitioner. It directed the delivery of the properties to the private respondents, effectively voiding the mortgage under Section 18 of P.D. No. 957.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the HLURB's ruling, emphasizing the importance of prior written approval for any mortgages on subdivision properties. The court recognized that the existence of contracts to sell affected the validity of the subsequent mortgage agreement. It reaffirmed that the HLURB had jurisdiction over these matters and correctly ruled that the actions of the developer were in violation of the law.

Supreme Court's Stance

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, supporting the lower courts' findings. It reiterated that the mortgage executed with the developer was invalid as it violated applicable legislation meant to protect buyers in real estate transactions. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not claim to be an innocent purchaser as it failed to conduct due diligence on the properties used as collateral.

Negligence of the Petitioner

The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner could not solely rely on the certificates of title and must examine whether the developer had authority to mortgage the properties. The court highlighted the importance of protecting buyers from unscrupulous developers and held that a lender should inquire further when there are indications of existing buyer interests in the properties being mortgaged.

Conclusion on Claims and Registration

The

...continue reading

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