G.R. No. 191636 - Prudential Bank vs. Rapanot

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191636)

Key Dates and Monetary Details

Reservation fee paid by Rapanot: May 9, 1995 (P453,329.64). Bank loan to Golden Dragon: September 13, 1995 (P50,000,000.00); mortgage annotated on CCT No. 2383 the same date. Contract to Sell between Rapanot and Golden Dragon: May 21, 1996. Rapanot’s full payment and Deed of Absolute Sale: April 23, 1997 (purchase price shown as P1,511,098.97). HLURB proceedings initiated April 27, 2001; Arbiter’s decision dated July 3, 2002; HLURB Board review filed January 16, 2003; Office of the President resolution October 10, 2005; Court of Appeals decision November 18, 2009 (with resolution March 17, 2010); Supreme Court decision denying the petition (reported in the prompt).

Applicable Law and Authorities

Governing constitution: 1987 Constitution (applicable to decisions rendered in 1990 or later). Procedural and substantive authorities relied upon in the decision include: Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (scope of review on certiorari), Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957) Sections 18 and 38 (mortgages on subdivision lots and condominium units), the 1996 Rules of Procedure of the HLURB (Board Resolution No. R‑586, Series of 1996, especially Rule VI Sections 4–5 regarding position papers and summary resolution), and controlling jurisprudence cited in the decision (Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez; Philippine National Bank v. Lim; United Overseas Bank v. Board of Commissioners‑HLURB; Philippine National Bank v. Vila; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belle Corporation, among others).

Procedural Posture

Rapanot filed a complaint with the HLURB seeking specific performance and damages for failure to deliver Unit 2308‑B2 free from liens and encumbrances. The Housing Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Rapanot on July 3, 2002, declaring the mortgage on Unit 2308‑B2 null and void as violative of PD 957 and awarding damages. The HLURB Board modified portions of the Arbiter’s award and mandated Golden Dragon to compensate the Bank for damages it was ordered to pay and to settle the mortgage obligation. The Office of the President adopted the HLURB Board findings and denied the Bank’s appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Bank’s petition for review. The Bank sought relief in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Essential Facts

Golden Dragon mortgaged multiple condominium units, including Unit 2308‑B2, to secure a P50,000,000 loan from the Bank. Rapanot had earlier paid a reservation fee and later completed the purchase price for Unit 2308‑B2; Golden Dragon executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Rapanot. Golden Dragon’s request (March 17, 1998) to substitute collateral was denied by the Bank due to unpaid accounts. Rapanot made verbal and written demands for delivery of the unit and title free of encumbrances; neither Golden Dragon nor the Bank complied. The Bank filed an Answer in the HLURB proceedings but contested that it had been deprived of due process when the Arbiter issued decision without considering the Bank’s position paper and draft decision.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Bank was afforded due process before the HLURB despite the Arbiter’s issuing a decision without awaiting the Bank’s position paper and draft decision. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Bank could not be considered a mortgagee in good faith with respect to Unit 2308‑B2, thereby rendering the mortgage unenforceable against Rapanot.

Scope of Review under Rule 45 and Applicable Exceptions

The Supreme Court reiterated that Rule 45 petitions are discretionary and generally limited to questions of law; factual findings are not ordinarily reviewable except under recognized exceptions (e.g., findings grounded on speculation or conjecture, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, overlooked undisputed facts that would justify a different conclusion, etc.). The Bank invoked exceptions (notably the second, fourth, and eleventh), but the Court found that none of these exceptions applied on the record.

Due Process Analysis

The Court emphasized that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Administrative due process affords a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side and does not always require a formal trial‑type hearing. The record showed that the Bank had filed an Answer asserting special and affirmative defenses, participated in the preliminary hearing, and attended scheduled conferences before the Arbiter. Although the Arbiter had ordered the parties to file position papers and draft decisions, the HLURB’s 1996 Rules expressly authorized the Arbiter to summarily resolve the case “with or without the position paper and draft decision” on the basis of verified pleadings and pertinent records. The Bank had actual notice of the Arbiter’s directive no later than May 22, 2002, when it was personally served with Rapanot’s position paper that referenced the April 2002 Order. The Bank did not contest the “refused to receive” annotation on the envelope of the registered mailing of the April 2002 Order and waited five months before obtaining a certified true copy of the Arbiter’s Decision. Given the Bank’s participation, prior submissions, and the HLURB rules permitting summary resolution, the Court concluded there was no deprivation of administrative due process.

Mortgage Validity and Mortgagee in Good Faith

The Court analyzed PD 957 Section 18, which prohibits a developer from mortgaging condominium units

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191636)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported as 803 Phil. 294, First Division; G.R. No. 191636; Decision dated January 16, 2017, penned by Justice Caguioa.
Petition is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the Court of Appeals—Seventh Division Decision dated November 18, 2009 (the questioned Decision) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93862 and the CA Resolution dated March 17, 2010 denying reconsideration.
Petitioner: Prudential Bank (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) (referred to as the Bank).
Respondents: Ronald Rapanot (private respondent, complainant below) and the Housing & Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
Underlying dispute originated from a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages filed by Rapanot against Golden Dragon Real Estate Corporation (Golden Dragon), Golden Dragon’s President Ma. Victoria M. Vazquez, and the Bank before the HLURB.

Parties and Roles in the Underlying Transaction

Golden Dragon Real Estate Corporation: developer of Wack-Wack Twin Towers Condominium, Mandaluyong City; registered owner of Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 2383 (covering Unit 2308-B2).
Ronald Rapanot: purchaser/buyer who paid a reservation fee and subsequent amounts for Unit 2308-B2 and later completed the purchase.
Prudential Bank (now Bank of the Philippine Islands): lender that extended a P50,000,000.00 loan to Golden Dragon and received a real estate mortgage over multiple condominium units, including Unit 2308-B2, as security.

Chronology of Material Facts (Transaction and Pre-Complaint)

May 9, 1995: Rapanot paid Golden Dragon P453,329.64 as reservation fee for Unit 2308-B2 (41.1050 sq.m.), which was covered by CCT No. 2383 in Golden Dragon’s name.
September 13, 1995: The Bank extended a P50,000,000.00 loan to Golden Dragon for additional working capital; Golden Dragon executed a Mortgage Agreement in favor of the Bank which included Unit 2308-B2; the mortgage was annotated on CCT No. 2383 on the same date.
May 21, 1996: Rapanot and Golden Dragon entered into a Contract to Sell for Unit 2308-B2.
April 23, 1997: Rapanot completed payment of the full purchase price for Unit 2308-B2 (reflected as P1,511,098.97 or P1,511,098.87 on record) and Golden Dragon executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Rapanot on that date.
Thereafter, Rapanot made several verbal demands for delivery of Unit 2308-B2 and its CCT.
March 17, 1998: Golden Dragon sent a letter to the Bank requesting substitution of collateral to replace Unit 2308-B2 with another unit of the same area; the Bank denied the request due to Golden Dragon’s unpaid accounts.
Golden Dragon failed to deliver the unit to Rapanot as demanded; Rapanot sent multiple written demand letters to Golden Dragon and the Bank formally demanding delivery of Unit 2308-B2 and its CCT free from liens and encumbrances; neither Golden Dragon nor the Bank complied.

Proceedings Before the HLURB (Field Office and Arbiter)

April 27, 2001: Rapanot filed a Complaint with the HLURB’s Expanded National Capital Region Field Office.
Preliminary hearings and several conferences were scheduled to explore amicable settlement but no settlement was reached.
Only the Bank filed an Answer among the defendants; Golden Dragon and its President were declared in default.
April 5, 2002: The Housing Arbiter issued an order (April 2002 Order) declaring Golden Dragon and its President in default and directed Rapanot and the Bank to submit respective position papers and draft decisions.
Service of the April 2002 Order: copies were served via registered mail to both Rapanot and the Bank; the envelope to the Bank was returned marked “refused to receive.”
May 22 and May 24, 2002: Rapanot personally served copies of his position paper and draft decision on the Bank; Rapanot’s position paper explicitly referenced the April 2002 Order.
July 3, 2002: The Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of Rapanot. The dispositive portion ordered, among other things:
- Declaration that the mortgage over Unit 2308-B2 (CCT No. 2383) in favor of the Bank is null and void for violation of Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 957.
- Ordering the Bank to cancel the mortgage and release the title to the complainant.
- Joint and several payment by respondents to the complainant of P100,000.00 moral damages, P100,000.00 exemplary damages, P50,000.00 attorney’s fees, costs of litigation, and an administrative fine of P10,000.00 payable to the HLURB Office within fifteen days.
- Directing the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City to cancel the mortgage on the title.
- Immediate delivery of CCT No. 2383 over Unit 2308-B2 to the complainant free from liens and encumbrances upon receipt by the complainant of the owner’s duplicate condominium certificate of title.
July 25, 2002: The Bank received a copy of Rapanot’s Manifestation dated July 24, 2002 stating that he had received a copy of the Arbiter’s Decision.
July 29, 2002: The Bank filed a Manifestation and Motion for Clarification requesting the opportunity to file its position paper and draft decision and seeking confirmation whether a decision had been rendered notwithstanding the absence of such submissions by the Bank.
September 2, 2002: Rapanot filed a Motion for Execution; the Bank filed an Opposition dated September 4, 2002. Records indicate Rapanot’s Motion for Execution and the Bank’s Opposition remained unresolved.
The Bank’s July 29, 2002 Motion for Clarification remained unresolved for approximately five months, prompting the Bank to secure a certified true copy of the Arbiter’s Decision from the HLURB.

HLURB Board of Commissioners’ Action

January 16, 2003: The Bank filed a Petition for Review with the HLURB Board of Commissioners alleging deprivation of due process among other grounds.
The HLURB Board modified the Arbiter’s Decision as follows:
- Reduced moral damages awarded from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.
- Deleted the award for exemplary damages.
- Reduced attorney’s fees from P50,000.00 to P20,000.00.
- Directed Golden Dragon to pay the Bank all damages the Bank was directed to pay thereunder, and to settle the mortgage obligation corresponding to Unit 2308-B2.
On the issue of due process, the HLURB Board held that the office below had issued and duly sent an Order to the parties declaring Golden Dragon in default and directing the Bank to submit its position paper, and thus found the Bank’s due process claim untenable.

Proceedings Before the Office of the President

The Bank appealed the HLURB Board’s decision to the Office of the President (OP).
October 10, 2005: The OP issued a resolution denying the Bank’s appeal and adopted the HLURB Board’s findings.
The Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the OP, which was denied by an Order dated March 3, 2006.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

April 17, 2006: The Bank filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the OP’s resolution and subsequent order, arguing primarily: (i) denial of due process before the HLURB, and (ii) that the Bank was a mortgagee in good faith entitled to protection and thus not jointly and severally liable for damages.
After the parties submitted memoranda, the CA rendered the questioned Decision dismissing the Bank’s Petition for Review.
CA’s reasoning on due process:
- The Bank had filed an Answer with special and affirmative defenses and participated in preliminary hearing and scheduled conferences; it was served with Rapanot’s position paper and draft decision and thus had opportunities to manifest or file its own submissions; it could not use an alleged denial of due process as a shield for neglecting to avail of such opportunities.
CA’s reasoning on mortgagee in good faith:
- Under Section 18 of PD No. 957, prior written HLURB authority is required before a developer may mortgage condominium units; the HLURB has jurisdiction over annulment of mortgages involving PD 957 violations.
- While a mortgagee in good faith normally relies on the face of the certificate of title, a bank’s business obliges it to take further steps to assure there are no encumbrances or that requisite HLURB approval was obtained; banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence and cannot merely rely on clean title
...continue reading