You are on page 1of 4

4. Cu Unjieng v Mabalacat Sugar Co. 58 Phil 439 FACTS: ISSUE: RULING: --9.

Limpin v IAC 166 SCRA 87 FACTS: Four lots were mortgaged by the spouses Jose and Marcelina Aquino to Guillermo Ponce and his wife Adela as security for a loan of P2,200,000.00. Two of the lots, those covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837, were afterwards sold by the Aquinos to the Butuan Bay Wood Export Corporation, which caused an adverse claim to be annotated on the certificates of title. Gregorio Y. Limpin, Jr. obtained a money judgment against Butuan Bay Wood Export Corporation. To satisfy the judgment, the lots covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837 were levied upon on and sold at public auction to Limpin as the highest bidder for the sum of P517,485.41. On order of the trial court, the covering titles were cancelled and issued to Limpin. Limpin sold the two lots to Rogelio M. Sarmiento. By virtue of said sale, TCTs Nos. 285450 and 285451 were cancelled on November 4, 1983, and TCTS were replaced in Sarmiento's name. Ponce filed suit against the Aquino spouses for judicial foreclosure of the mortgage over the Aquinos' four lots. Judgment was rendered in favor of Ponce. After the judgment became final, the Trial Court, directed the sale at public auction of the 4 mortgaged lots to satisfy the judgment. The 4 lots, including those formerly covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837, were sold to Ponce himself whose bid was the highest and exactly correspond to the judgment debt. On the same day, the sheriff's certificate of sale was registered. Ponce then moved for the confirmation of the sale and the issuance of a writ of possession in his favor covering the four lots. But the Trial Court confirmed only the sale of the lots covered by TCTs Nos. 02839 and 92840, refusing to confirm the sale or issue a writ of possession in regard to the lots covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837 on the ground that those titles had already been cancelled and new ones issued to Gregorio F. Limpin. Ponce filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Trial Court. IAC set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and issue a writ of possession to Ponce with respect thereto, subject to Sarmiento's equity of redemption.

ISSUE: Whether or not, IAC erred in according superiority to the mortgage rights of Ponce over the levy and sale in favor of Limpin and the subsequent sale to Sarmiento. RULING: NO. It was once held that [T]he effect of the failure to implead a subordinate lienholder or subsequent purchaser or both is to render the foreclosure ineffective as against them, with the result that there remains in their favor the "unforeclosed equity of redemption." But the foreclosure is valid as between the parties to the suit. Applied to this case, this means that the sale to Ponce, as the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale of the two lots in question should have been confirmed, subject to Limpin's (and now Sarmiento's equity to redemption. The registration of the lands, first in the name of Limpin and later of Sarmiento, was premature. At most what they were entitled to was the registration of their equity of redemption. It is well settled that a recorded mortgage is a right in rem, a lien on the property whoever its owner may be. The recordation of the mortgage in this case puts the whole world on constructive notice of its existence and warned everyone who thereafter dealt with the property on which it was constituted that he would have to reckon with that encumbrance. Hence, Limpin's subsequent purchase of the "interests and participation" of Butuan Bay Wood Export Corporation in the lots covered by TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837, as well as the sale of the same to Sarmiento were both subject to said mortgage. --14. Aclon v CA 387 SCRA 415 FACTS: On December 15, 1964, Aclon secured a loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB for brevity)) at Catbalogan, Samar, in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), payable within one (1) year, this was secured by a mortgage of two parcels of land to PNB. The loan became due and payable on December 15, 1965. However, the same was extended after Aclon made a partial payment. But, still, Aclon failed to pay the loan in full at the time of its maturity.PNB instituted extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Act 3135. After notice and publication, and conduct of the auction sale of the mortgaged properties on July 17, 1973, The subject properties were awarded to PNB, being the sole and highest bidder. The period of redemption lapsed on October 4, 1974 without Aclon redeeming the foreclosed properties. PNB then consolidated its ownership over the said parcels of land on October 16, 1974. Then some time around January 21, 1975, Aclon made a payment to PNB that was a deposit for the purpose of enabling him to repurchase the foreclosed property. On June 25, 1975, PNB sold to spouses Zosimo and Natalia Opimo the subject residential land located at Sulat, Eastern Samar. However, Aclon remained in possession of the property.

Aclon refused to vacate the same and instead filed a complaint against PNB and the Opimo spouses for Annulment of Two Contracts of Sale with Damages and Consignation. The Opimo spouses, on the other hand, filed a complaint for Recovery of Real Property with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages . Aclon brought two separate appeals with the Court of Appeals. But the affirmed the decision of the lower court, whereby declaring the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in question, as well as the sale at public auction to defendant PNB are declared null and void (FOR LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW, ACT 3135, ON POSTING, PUBLICATION) but the subsequent sale of the property by defendant PNB to appellees is however declared valid; and that Aclon isordered to vacate the property in question and to surrender possession thereof to Opimo Aclon now questions the sale to Opimo. ISSUE: Whether or not, the sale to Opimo is valid, being that the extrajudicial proceedings and auction were held invalid for not RULING: Yes. An attempt to redeem from an execution sale by Aclon making the deposit has been construed as a waiver of defects or irregularities therein, precluding him from relying upon them for the purpose of challenging its validity. It has been held that The exercise of right of redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of the foreclosure sale and estops the mortgagor from later impugning its validity on that ground. Redemption is inconsistent with the claim of the invalidity of the sale. --19. Ley v Union Bank 520 SCRA 369 FACTS: A Credit Line Agreement was executed between Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) and private respondent Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP). The credit line given to LCDC was for P20 million, effective for a period of up to 31 May 1991. Among the securities for the Credit Line Agreement is the Tagaytay Property of the Ley. LCDC availed of the credit line granted to it and executed the promissory notes in favor of UBP in the total amount of P18,757,152.78. However, LCDC failed, despite demands, to pay its loan obligation as of 31 May 1991. Consequently, on 7 October 1991, UBP filed against the spouses Ley and LCDC the collection suit. RTC issued a Resolution granting UBPs Motion thus ordering LCDC and the spouses Ley to pay the amount of P18,833,674.86 plus the agreed interest and penalty charges. When UBP moved for the execution of the Resolution, the new presiding judge denied the motion for execution. But was reversed by the CA. Later, UBP levied on the spouses Leys property. Said property was sold on execution with UBP as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was then issued in favor of UBP. This certificate of sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Tagaytay City.

Prior to the expiration of the redemption period for the Tagaytay property on 18 September 2003, the spouses Ley filed against UBP a complaint for recovery of title. UBP refused to release the title to the Tagaytay property to the spouses Ley; that, in view of UBPs refusal, the spouses Ley were unable to effect the sale of the Tagaytay property to a willing buyer for an acceptable price; and, that all the foregoing had prompted the spouses Ley to file the Tagaytay case for recovery of title as well as damages. UBPs refusal is based on contention that the Tagaytay property sought to be recovered had already been levied and sold on execution to satisfy the final and executory judgment in the Makati Case; and because it had already become the owner of the property; ISSUE: Whether or Not, UBP is justified in the refusal to release the title. RULING: No. While it is true that a certificate of sale on the Tagaytay property was already issued in favor of UBP, the one year period of redemption had not yet expired when the complaint for recovery of title was filed by the spouses Ley. It is only upon the expiration of the redemption period, without the judgment debtor having made use of his right of redemption, does ownership of the land sold become consolidated in the purchaser.