Title
Zomer Development Co., Inc. vs. Special 20th Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City
Case
G.R. No. 194461
Decision Date
Jan 7, 2020
Zomer Development challenged Section 47 of RA 8791, claiming unequal redemption periods violated equal protection. SC denied mandamus, citing mootness after *Goldenway* upheld the law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194461)

Procedural Posture

In February 2002, Zomer Development sued in the RTC for nullity of the foreclosure sale, Certificates of Sale and titles, and challenged the constitutionality of RA 8791 Sec. 47—arguing that the three-month redemption period for juridical persons violated equal protection. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received notice but did not participate. The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to implead the OSG. On appeal, the CA classified the action as declaratory relief and declined to rule on Sec. 47’s constitutionality, dismissing the appeal without prejudice. Zomer Development then petitioned the Supreme Court for mandamus to compel the CA to decide the issue.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether a petition for mandamus may compel the CA to rule on a statute’s constitutionality, given the discretionary nature of declaratory relief.
  2. Whether the case is moot in light of Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, which upheld Sec. 47’s constitutionality.
  3. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for non-impleader of the Solicitor General.

Impleading the Solicitor General

Under Rule 63, Sec. 3, statutes’ validity challenges require notification to the Solicitor General, who may intervene at his discretion (Administrative Code, Sec. 35). Notice was duly furnished. The Solicitor General’s failure to participate amounted to waiver, and the RTC erred in dismissing the action for non-impleader or alleged deprivation of due process.

Discretionary Nature of Declaratory Relief

Declaratory relief lies within the court’s discretion (Rule 63, Sec. 5). The CA’s refusal to declare rights under Sec. 47 constituted an exercise of that discretion. A writ of mandamus compels only ministerial duties, not discretionary acts. The proper remedy to challenge such discretion would have been certiorari, not mandamus.

Mootness in Light of Goldenway Merchandising

Goldenway Merchandising (2013) directly addressed and upheld the constitutionality of RA 8791 Sec. 47 under the equal protection clause, finding the classification between natural and juridical persons reasonable and germane to banking stability. Subsequent cases (White Marketing Development, Spouses Limso) reaffirmed this ruling. As Sec. 47’s validity has been authoritatively settled, further adjudication would be moot.

Equal Protection Analysis

Under the 1987 Constitution, equ

...continue reading

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