Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

1

G.R. No. 77502 January 15, 1988 Santiago vs Pioneer Savings and Loan E !L!" #. S"N$!"G%, plaintiff-appellant, vs. P!%NEER S"&!NGS "N' L%"N #"N(, E$. "L., defendants-appellees. An appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Tribunal for determination since only a question of law is involved. The facts are not controverted. Plaintiff-appellant, Emilia P. Santia o, is the re istered owner of a parcel of land situated at Polo, !alen"uela, #etro #anila, with an area of appro$imately %&,''( square meters, covered by T.C.T. )o. *-+,--& .briefly, the Title/ of the 0e ister of 1eeds of Caloocan City .hereinafter, simply the 1isputed Property/. 2n ( April ,&3%, plaintiff-appellant e$ecuted a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Construction 0esources Corporation of the Philippines .C0CP, for short/ authori"in and empowerin C0CP4 ,. To borrow money and ma5e, e$ecute, si n and deliver mort a es of real estate now owned by me and standin in my name and to ma5e, si n, e$ecute and deliver any and all promissory notes necessary in the premises. 6. 7or the purpose of these presents, or for the purpose of securin the payment of any loan, indebtedness or obli ation which my attorney-in-fact may obtain or contract with the ban5, its renewal, e$tension of payment of the whole or any part thereof, said attorney-in-fact is hereby authori"ed and empowered to transfer and convey by way of mort a e in favor of the ban5, ... .the 1isputed Property/. 2n 3 April ,&3%, C0CP e$ecuted a 0eal Estate #ort a e over the 1isputed Property in favor of 78)AS8A 8nvestment and 7inance Corporation to secure a loan of P, million. The mort a e contract specifically provided that in the event of default in payment, the mort a ee may immediately foreclose the mort a e 9udicially or e$tra9udicially. The promissory note evidencin the indebtedness was dated + #arch ,&3%.

The Special Power of Attorney e$ecuted by plaintiff-appellant in C0CP:s favor, the 0eal Estate #ort a e by C0CP in favor of 78)AS8A, to ether with the *oard 0esolution dated 63 #arch ,&3% authori"in the C0CP President to si n for and on its behalf, were duly annotated on the Title on ,6 April ,&3%. 2n 6& ;uly ,&3%, 78)AS8A e$ecuted in favor of defendant-appellee, Pioneer Savin s < =oan *an5, 8nc. .1efendant *an5, for brevity/, an >2utri ht Sale of 0eceivables without 0ecourse> includin the receivable of P-,',(?6.?& from C0CP. 2n 6, #ay ,&3+, 78)AS8A e$ecuted a >Supplemental 1eed of Assi nment> in favor of 1efendant *an5 confirmin and ratifyin the assi nment in the latter:s favor of the receivable of P-,',(?6.?& from C0CP and of the mort a e constituted by C0CP over the disputed property. 2n ,6 ;uly ,&3+, the aforesaid Supplemental 1eed of Assi nment was inscribed on the Title. C0CP failed to settle its obli ation and 1efendant *an5 opted for e$tra9udicial foreclosure of the mort a e. The notice of auction sale was scheduled on ,- #ay ,&3?. 2n ,% #ay ,&3?, on learnin of the intended sale, plaintiff-appellant filed before the 0e ional Trial Court of !alen"uela, #etro #anila, *ranch C=@@88, an action for declaration of nullity of the real estate mort a e with an application for a Arit of Preliminary 8n9unction .Civil Case )o. 66%,-!-??/. 2n ,+ #ay ,&3?, the Trial Court 1 issued a Temporary 0estrainin 2rder en9oinin the sale at public auction of the 1isputed Property. *asically, plaintiff-appellant claimed in her Complaint that she was not aware of any real estate mort a e she had e$ecuted in favor of 1efendant *an5B that she had not authori"ed anyone to e$ecute any document for the e$tra9udicial foreclosure of the real estate mort a e constituted on the 1isputed Property and that since the notice of Sheriffs sale did not include her as a party to the foreclosure proceedin s, it is not bindin on her nor on her property. 1efendant *an5 opposed the application for Preliminary 8n9unction and asserted its ri ht to e$tra9udicially foreclose the mort a e on the 1isputed Property based on recorded public documents.

1urin the hearin on the petition for Preliminary 8n9unction, plaintiff-appellant, throu h counsel, admitted the due e$ecution of plaintiff-appellant:s Special Power of Attorney in favor of C0CP, the 0eal Estate #ort a e by C0CP to 78)AS8A, the 2utri ht Sale of 0eceivables by 78)AS8A to 1efendant *an5, as well the Supplemental 1eed of Assi nment by 78)AS8A to 1efendant *an5. 2n %' #ay ,&3?, the Trial Court ranted the Petition for Preliminary 8n9unction en9oinin the public auction sale of the mort a ed property upon plaintiffappellant:s postin of a bond in the amount of P,'','''.''. 2n ( ;une ,&3?, 1efendant *an5 filed a #otion to 1ismiss the main case on the round that the complaint did not state a cause of action followed on 6+ ;une ,&3? with a #otion for 0econsideration of the 2rder rantin the Arit of Preliminary 8n9unction, both of which #otions plaintiff-appellant opposed. 2n %' Au ust ,&3?, the Trial Court reconsidered its 2rder of %' #ay ,&3?, dissolved the Arit of Preliminary 8n9unction, and ordered the dismissal of the case for lac5 of cause of action. Plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, as stated at the outset, certified the case to us on a pure question of law. 8n the meantime, with the dissolution of the Preliminary 8n9unction, it appears that defendant *an5 completed its e$tra9udicial foreclosure and the 1isputed Property was sold at public auction on ;anuary ,&3-, after a re-publication of the notice of sale, since the first scheduled sale was en9oined by the Trial Court. Plaintiff-appellant maintains that4 8. The =ower Court erred in dismissin the complaint and liftin the Preliminary 8n9unction by relyin solely on the admission of the counsel of the plaintiff-appellant of certain documentary e$hibits presented by the counsel of the defendant-appellee. 88. The =ower Court erred in relyin on the case of Wenceslao Vinzons Tan vs. Director of Forestry which it qualifies as >on all fours with the case at bar.>

888. The =ower Court erred in i norin the pertinent doctrines in the Supreme Court cases cited by the plaintiff-appellant in her 2pposition to #otion to 1ismiss. 8!. The =ower Court erred in holdin that notice of the scheduled sale of the land sent to the a ent .C0CP/ is also )otice to the principal .Plaintiff Appellant/, the land owner. and prays that she be iven >a real day in Court> so that she may testify and ive her side of the case. Cpon the factual and le al conte$t, the errors assi ned are without merit. 8t is true that the determination of the sufficiency of a cause of action must be limited to the facts alle ed in the Complaint and no other should be considered. 2 8n this case, however, a hearin was held and documentary evidence was presented, not on the #otion to 1ismiss but on the question of rantin or denyin plaintiffappellant:s application for a Arit of Preliminary 8n9unction, Counsel for plaintiffappellant admitted an the evidence presented. That bein so, the Trial Court committed no reversible error in considerin said evidence in the resolution of the #otion to 1ismiss. 7urthermore, >even if the complaint stated a valid cause of action, a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of cause of action will be ranted if documentary evidence admitted by stipulation disclosin facts sufficient to defeat the claim enabled the court to o beyond disclosure in the complaint> .=2CA=S )o. ,+(', )o. ,+-&, and )o. ,?,6 of the 8nternational =on shoremen:s Association vs. Southern Pacific Co., - 7ed. 0ules Service, p. ,'(B C.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 7ifth Circuit, 1ec. (, ,&?6B ,%, 7. 6d -'?/. Thus, althou h the evidence of the parties were presented on the question of rantin or denyin petitioner-appellant:s application for a writ of preliminary in9unction, the trial court correctly applied said evidence in the resolution of the motion to dismiss. ... ) Ahile, as contended by plaintiff-appellant, some aspects of this case differ from those in Tan, the doctrinal rulin therein, as quoted above, is squarely applicable to the case at bar. The cases which plaintiff-appellant cites e$press the eneral rule when there is no >documentary evidence admitted by stipulation disclosin facts sufficient to defeat the claim.> Ahere, however, such evidence is before the Court

and has been stipulated upon, a Court can o >beyond the disclosure in the complaint.> * #oreover, the rule is e$plicit that >rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very ri id, technical senseB rules of procedure are used only to help secure substantial 9ustice.> 5 The evidence on record sufficiently defeats plaintiff-appellant:s claim for relief from e$tra9udicial foreclosure. Der Special Power of Attorney in favor of C0CP specifically included the authority to mort a e the 1isputed Property. The 0eal Estate #ort a e in favor of 78)AS8A e$plicitly authori"ed foreclosure in the event of default. 8ndeed, foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of a mort a e indebtedness. Plaintiff-appellant, therefore, cannot ri htfully claim that 78)AS8A, as the assi nee of the mort a ee, cannot e$tra9udicially foreclose the mort a ed property. A mort a e directly and immediately sub9ects the property upon which it is imposed to the fulfillment of the obli ation for whose security it was constituted. + The assi nment of receivables made by the ori inal mort a ee, 78)AS8A, to 1efendant *an5 was valid, since a mort a e credit may be alienated or assi ned to a third person, in whole or in part, with the formalities required by law. 7 Said formalities were complied with in this case. The assi nment was made in a public instrument and proper recordin in the 0e istry of Property was made. 8 Ahile notice may not have been iven to plaintiff-appellant personally, the publication of the )otice of Sheriff:s Sale, as required by law, is notice to the whole world. The full-dress hearin that plaintiff-appellant prays for wherein she intends to prove that she tried to contact the President of C0CP to ur e him to pay the mort a e loan, that she had failed to do so despite several attemptsB that she did not 5now that 78)AS8A had sold its receivables includin that of C0CP to 1efendant *an5B and that she was not informed by C0CP of the scheduled foreclosure sale will not tilt the scales of 9ustice in her favor in the face of incontrovertible documentary evidence before the Court. Plaintiff-appellant:s recourse is a ainst C0CP, specially considerin her alle ation that the latter had failed to observe their a reement. ADE0E720E, the 2rder appealed from is hereby A7780#E1, with costs a ainst plaintiff-appellant.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen