Title
Supreme Court
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 105760
Decision Date
Jul 7, 1997
PNB foreclosed mortgaged land, sought writ of possession, but tenant Montano contested under agrarian laws. SC ruled tenant's rights prevail, denying PNB's claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105760)

Applicable Law

The applicable law includes provisions from the 1987 Philippine Constitution and several pertinent statutes such as the Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 3135, Presidential Decree Nos. 27, 36, and 583 concerning agrarian reform and related tenancy rights.

Background of the Case

In 1978, the spouses Crisanto de la Cruz and Pepita Montano encumbered two parcels of land to PNB for a loan amounting to P24,000.00. Following the mortgage, PNB conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure on October 12, 1984, acquiring a Certificate of Sale the same day, which was recorded on November 28, 1984. On September 24, 1986, PNB filed a petition for a Writ of Possession, claiming ownership due to the failure of the mortgagors to redeem the properties within the one-year redemption period.

Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Possession

Montano contended that he had been a tenant on the property since before 1972, that there was an ongoing agrarian case regarding his rights as a tenant, and that the issuance of the Writ would constitute a violation of his rights according to agrarian reform laws. The RTC granted Montano's motion to dissolve the Writ of Possession on August 28, 1990.

Case Progression

PNB's appeal to the Court of Appeals initially resulted in a favorable decision for PNB on September 13, 1991. However, upon Montano’s motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed its decision on June 3, 1992, thus affirming the RTC's order to dissolve the Writ of Possession. PNB subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the CA's ruling was not in accordance with the law.

Arguments from PNB

PNB advanced several arguments, asserting that:

  1. Its right to a Writ of Possession was not premature as almost eight years had lapsed since the Certificate of Sale was issued, and that consolidation of title was not a precondition for obtaining such a writ.
  2. The adjudication in the agrarian suit did not adversely affect PNB, insisting that Montano's tenancy claim was barred by laches, negligence, and estoppel due to his failure to notify PNB during the agrarian case.
  3. It maintained a constitutional right to property and that the CA's reference to social justice provisions was inapplicable.

Arguments from Montano

Montano countered that legal precedent required confirmation of title before issuance of a Writ of Possession, acknowledging PNB’s ownership while simultaneously asserting his rights under tenancy laws that provided him security of tenure. He argued that he had established possession rights before the foreclosure and highlighted that PNB had prior awareness of his occupancy.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court found Montano's possession legally justified, given that he had been determined as the tenant on the landholding. It reiterated that the rights of tenants were protected even if the titleholder was not boun

...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.