Title
Tambunting, Jr. vs. Spouses Sumabat
Case
G.R. No. 144101
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2005
Land dispute: mortgage foreclosure voided due to prescription, lack of jurisdiction; consignation extinguished debt; property reconveyed to respondents.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144101)

Background of the Mortgage and Legal Proceedings

On May 3, 1973, the respondents mortgaged their property to petitioner Antonio Tambunting, Jr. to secure a loan of P7,727.95. By August 1976, the respondents were informed that their debt had increased to P15,000 due to missed amortization payments. Following their default in May 1977, CHFI initiated foreclosure proceedings, which were halted by an injunction from the Court of First Instance (CFI) in a case filed by the respondents. This case was later dismissed for lack of appearance from both parties.

Subsequently, the respondents sought clarification regarding their indebtedness through an action for declaratory relief, which was also dismissed after the petitioners were declared in default for failing to respond. On January 8, 1981, the CFI determined the respondents’ liability to be P15,743.83, allowing them to consign this amount for payment.

Foreclosure Proceedings and Subsequent Developments

In March 1995, the respondents received a notice regarding the foreclosure of their mortgage by CHFI, indicated for a public auction scheduled on March 27, 1995. Despite the ongoing litigation initiated by the respondents to seek a preliminary injunction and other reliefs against this foreclosure, the auction proceeded, and the property was sold to CHFI. The respondents were unable to redeem their property in the designated period, resulting in the consolidation of title in favor of CHFI.

In light of these developments, the respondents amended their initial complaint to seek nullification of the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale, alongside claims for damages.

Decision of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC ruled on February 11, 2000, that the previous decision from 1981 had become final and that the mortgage was extinguished when the respondents made their consignation. The court further held that the petitioners had effectively allowed the ten-year prescription period for foreclosure to lapse, thus denying their entitlement to enforce the mortgage. The trial court declared the foreclosure, the subsequent sale, and the consolidation of title void, ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 310191 and reconveyance of the property to the respondents. Additionally, it awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees to the respondents.

Petitioners’ Arguments and Court’s Analysis

On appeal, the petitioners contested the RTC's findings, primarily arguing that the CFI lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory relief case because a breach of the mortgage had already occurred at the time the action was filed. They maintained that the earlier judgment was void and, consequently, the subsequent consignation based on that judgment was similarly void. The petitioners also disagreed with the court’s conclusion regarding the expiration of their right to foreclose.

The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners' contentions regarding the jurisdiction over the declaratory relief action. It underscored that a court may only assume jur

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.