Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Veneracion v. Mancilla (2006).docx

Veneracion v. Mancilla (2006).docx

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Andre Philippe Ramos on Jan 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Digest Author: Dodot 
Veneracion v. Mancilla (2006)Petition:
Certiorari [Review resolution of CA]
Petitioner:
Mary Grace M. Veneracion, representing herself andminors Daisy M. Veneracion and Richard M. Veneracion
Respondents:
Charlie Mancilla represented by his heirs, namely,Giar Cheng Linda T. Mancilla, Caitlin Mancilla, Erica Tiffany Mancilla,Hon. Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, in her capacity as Presiding Judgeof the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City; Sheriff,Jovinal Salayon; and the Register of Deeds of Paranaque City
Ponente:
J. Callejo, Sr.
Date:
20 July 2006
Facts:
CASE OF MOTHER OF PETITIONERS
 
14 Feb 1995
 –
 
Elizabeth Mendinueta (Mother of Petitioners), secured P1.2M loan from Charlie Mancilla(Respondent)
o
 
At the time, Elizabeth married to GeronimoVeneracion (had lived together as husband andwife w/o marriage; married a few years prior tothe loan)
o
 
Terms of loan
 
Payable on or before 14 Aug 1995
 
5% monthly interest (payable w/in first5 days of the month)
 
Secured by: real estate mortgage overresidential lot (Better Living,Paranaque), including the residentialhouse thereon
 
Title of the lot: Elizabeth
appeared as “single” (bought
before she and Geronimowere formally married)
 
In case of failure to pay the loan:stipulated that the real estatemortgage may be foreclosed
 –
  judicially or extra-judicially (annotatedon dorsal portion of the Title)
 
11 Oct 1995
 –
 
Elizabeth failed to pay the loan; Charlie filedpetition with Caloocan RTC for judicial foreclosure of thereal estate mortgage
o
 
During pendency of the case, Charlie died
 –
hisheirs impleaded as parties-plaintiffs
 
25 Sep 1997
 –
 
RTC ruled in favor of the Mancillas
o
 
Elizabeth ordered to pay loan + interest +interest on accrued interest
o
 
Otherwise, disputed property would beauctioned to satisfy the judgment
 
Elizabeth subsequently appealed to CA, but all suchappeals ended up being dismissed
o
 
She then appealed to the SC, only to have theCourt deny her petition
 
Records remanded to trial court
 –
writ of execution wasissued
o
 
At the auction, the heirs of Charlie were thewinning bidders
 –
sheriff executed a Certificateof Sale
o
 
Register of Deeds annotated the Certificate of sale on the Title of the disputed propertyCASE OF PETITIONERS
 
5 Nov 2002
 –
 
Mary Grace, on behalf of her siblings, filed apetition with the CA, against the heirs of Charlie Mancillaet al.
o
 
Alleged that at the time the disputed property
was bought in the 80’s, their parents, Elizabeth
and Geronimo, had been living together ashusband and wife, w/o the benefit of marriage
o
 
The property thus became part of the conjugalproperty of the spouses
 
When she obtained the real estatemortgage, Elizabeth could not havebeen expected to know that
Geronimo’s consent was necessary
 
o
 
In decided as it did, RTC alleged to have violated
 
Art. 154, FC (when it declared thefamily home liable for the execution of the decision)
 
Art. 158, FC (when it sustained thevalidity of the mortgage in the absence
of Geronimo’s consent)
 
 
CA dismissed the petition for procedural infirmities (failureto append duplicate/CTC of the original complaint filed w/the RTC, the motion for execution, and the entry of  judgment; among others)
o
 
Later on, when the CA denied a subsequentmotion for reconsideration, aside from notingprocedural issues, the CA pointed out that Rule47, RoC, would only be actionable for annulmentof judgments in cases of (1) extrinsic fraud, or (2)lack or excess of jurisdiction
o
 
Also, that since the violation of substantive lawhad NOT been raised in an appeal, that theCORRECTNESS OF JUDGMENT could not be anissue
 –
thus, there was no need to address sucherrors allegedly committed by the trial court
 
Petitioners then filed case w/ the SC, to review theresolution of the CA
Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts:FAMILY CODEArt. 154.
The beneficiaries of a family home are:(1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the headof a family; and(2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters,whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are livingin the family home and who depend upon the head of the family forlegal support. (226a)
Art. 158.
The family home may be sold, alienated, donated, assignedor encumbered by the owner or owners thereof with the writtenconsent of the person constituting the same, the latter's spouse, anda majority of the beneficiaries of legal age. In case of conflict, thecourt shall decide. (235a)
Issues:
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->