Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Veloso vs. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 256924
Decision Date
Jun 14, 2023
Spouses Veloso defaulted on loans, prompting BDO to foreclose mortgaged properties. Their suit to nullify foreclosure was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to allege assessed property value.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256924)

Initiation of Extrajudicial Foreclosure and Parallel Suit

After the petitioners defaulted, BDO filed an extrajudicial foreclosure petition (FRE No. 9302) in RTC Quezon City on October 10, 2012. Meanwhile, the Velosos filed a complaint for accounting and set-off in RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 12-1148) on November 23, 2012, challenging the legality of the loan documents as unconscionable.

Auction Sale, Certificate of Sale, and Redemption Notice

BDO became the highest bidder at the public auction on November 27, 2012. The Clerk of Court issued and the Registry of Deeds annotated a certificate of sale on December 27, 2012. On May 30, 2013, BDO served the Velosos a Notice to Redeem, informing them of their right to redeem the mortgaged properties.

Complaint for Nullity and Motion to Dismiss

On June 19, 2013, the Velosos filed in RTC Quezon City a complaint for declaration of nullity of the mortgage, extrajudicial foreclosure, certificate of sale, its registration, and all related entries, asserting unconscionability of stipulations. BDO moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on June 5, 2018, contending the action was a real action without an alleged assessed value.

RTC and CA Rulings on Jurisdiction

Branch 97, RTC Quezon City, dismissed the complaint on March 18, 2019, holding that actions affecting title or interest in real property require the assessed value in the complaint. The CA, in Decision dated November 16, 2020, affirmed the dismissal and denied the Velosos’ motion for reconsideration on June 16, 2021.

Issue on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over an action classified as affecting title to or interest in real property without an alleged assessed value in the complaint.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Real vs. Personal Action

The Court reiterated that an action “affecting title to or possession of real property” is a real action under Section 19 of BP 129 (as amended), requiring the court’s jurisdiction to be determined by the assessed value of the property. Despite the Velosos’ characterization of a contract-nullity suit, the relief sought would necessarily restore their ownersh

...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.