Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

BPI VS.

HONG


Facts: Eyco filed a petition for suspending its payment and rehabilitation before
the SEC. But the SEC disapproves the petition and order its liquidation of their
corporation. EYCO raised the decision to the CA but CA upheld the decision made
by SEC.

on November, BPI filed to the RTC Valenzuela a petition for extra-judicial
foreclosure mortgaged by EYCOs Property and Blue star Star Mahogany. Then it
was subsequently scheduled on December 19, 2000. Eduardo Hong, Claiming that
the judicial foreclosure filed by BPI was illegal, he filed an action for injunction
and damages against BPI at the same court. He alleged the following:


After the hearing the trial court issues a TRO. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that by plaintiff own allegation in the complaint, jurisdiction over the
reliefs prayed for belong to the SEC. And that the plaintiff is actually resorting to a
forum shopping since he filed a claim to the sec and the designated liquidator in
the liquidation of the EYCO GROUP. The respondent said that the RTC has
jurisdiction on the issue of propriety and validity of the foreclosure by
petitioner in accordance with Sec. 1 Rule 4. The suit being in nature of a real
action.


ISSUE: WON the case for foreclosure is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

HELD: It held that questions relating to the validity or legality of the
foreclosure proceedings, including an action to enjoin the same, must
necessarily be cognizable by the RTC, notwithstanding that the SEC likewise
possesses the power to issue injunction in all cases in which it has jurisdiction
as provided in Sec. 6 (a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A. Further, the
CA stated that an action for foreclosure of mortgage and all incidents relative
thereto including its validity or invalidity is within the jurisdiction of the RTC
and is not among those cases over which the SEC exercises exclusive and
original jurisdiction under Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen