Title
Supreme Court
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Alejo
Case
G.R. No. 141970
Decision Date
Sep 10, 2001
Metrobank, excluded from a case annulling its mortgaged property's title, successfully petitioned for annulment of judgment, citing lack of jurisdiction and due process violation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 141970)

Petitioner

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, the annotated mortgagee on TCT No. V-41319, holder of valid real estate mortgage and purchaser at extrajudicial foreclosure.

Respondents

  1. Hon. Floro T. Alejo, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 172, Valenzuela City.
  2. Sy Tan Se, through attorney-in-fact Sian Suat Ngo, plaintiff in the nullity suit.

Key Dates

• Mortgage execution: November 21, 1995, and January 30, 1996.
• Registration of mortgage annotation: November 20, 1995; January 23, 1996.
• Nullity complaint filed: June 3, 1996.
• Extrajudicial foreclosure sale: June 17, 1997; Certificate of Sale: July 15, 1997.
• RTC decision annulling TCT: August 12, 1998.
• Petition for annulment of judgment filed with CA: January 27, 1999.
• CA resolutions denying relief: March 25, 1999, and January 27, 2000.
• Supreme Court decision basis: 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, due process guarantee.
• Revised Rules of Court: Rule 3, Sec. 7 (indispensable parties); Rule 38 (relief from judgment); Rule 47 (annulment for extrinsic fraud).
• Torrens system jurisprudence on certificate finality and annotations.

Procedural History

Sy Tan Se sued to annul TCT V-41319 without impleading Metropolitan Bank, prompting mortgage foreclosure by the bank and issuance of a new title. Upon learning of the RTC’s cancellation, the bank sought annulment of the judgment in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for lack of proper remedy and form.

Issues

  1. Whether annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is the proper remedy for extrinsic fraud and lack of party inclusion.
  2. Whether the RTC’s nullification of the TCT and mortgage annotation, entered without jurisdiction over an indispensable party, must be set aside.

Proper Remedy Analysis

The Supreme Court held that
• Rule 38 relief from judgment was unavailable because the bank was never a party to the nullity suit.
• An action for quieting of title was inappropriate as it does not address the absence of due process in the earlier judgment and cannot modify another court’s decree.
• Intervention was precluded because the bank lacked notice and Sy Tan Se intentionally omitted it, constituting extrinsic fraud.
Annulment under Rule 47 was thus the only effective remedy to protect the bank’s property rights.

Jurisdiction and Indispensable Party Analysis

Torrens jurisprudence and Rules

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.