Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Rosales vs. Spouses Suba
Case
G.R. No. 137792
Decision Date
Aug 12, 2003
Property dispute: equitable mortgage declared; petitioners failed to deposit required amount, leading to judicial foreclosure and auction sale. No right of redemption under Rule 68; equity of redemption lost due to delay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 8025)

Trial Court Ruling on Equitable Mortgage

The RTC held that the deed of sale lacked formalities but evidenced an intention to secure debt by real property. It rendered final judgment ordering petitioners to deposit the required amount within 90–120 days, failing which the property would be sold at public auction.

Failure to Deposit and Issuance of Writ of Execution

Petitioners did not comply with the deposit directive, disputing the computation of the debt and filing premature oppositions. Upon petition by Macaspac, the court issued a writ of execution on March 25, 1998, authorizing levy and sale under Rule 39.

Auction Sale and Confirmation

The property was sold at public auction on May 15, 1998, to respondents Alfonso and Lourdes Suba for ₱285,000 as highest bidders. On July 15, 1998, the RTC confirmed the sale and directed the sheriff to issue the final deed of sale. A new Transfer Certificate of Title was subsequently issued in respondents’ names on August 3, 1998.

Petition for Writ of Possession and Reconsideration

Respondents moved for a writ of possession, asserting that confirmation of sale extinguished petitioners’ equity of redemption. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but were denied. The RTC ruled there is no right of redemption in judicial foreclosure under Rule 68.

Court of Appeals Dismissal

On petition for certiorari, the CA dismissed for lack of merit, holding that judicial foreclosure extinguished mortgagors’ right of redemption and that petitioners could not invoke the one-year redemption period under Rule 39 § 25, which applies solely to extrajudicial foreclosure.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners argued that since their loan was unsecured, the sale should be treated as execution for money judgment under Rule 39 §§ 9 and 25, thereby entitling them to a one-year redemption period post-registration of sale certificate.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Equitable Mortgage and Judicial Foreclosure

The Court affirmed that the RTC correctly characterized the transaction as an equitable mortgage and properly applied Rule 68. It rejected petitioners’ attempt to reclassify the proceedings as ordinary execution under Rule 39. Judicial foreclosure under Rule 68 affords only a limited equity of redemption within the 90-day period before sale confirmati

...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.