[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
349 views2 pages

Caneland Sugar Corp. v. Alon

Caneland Sugar Corp. v Alon G.R. No. 142896, September 12, 2007 Caneland Sugar Corporation filed a complaint against the Land Bank of the Philippines and a sheriff seeking to enjoin an auction sale of its property. The regional trial court denied the injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also denied injunctive relief, finding that Caneland did not dispute its loan obligation and its allegations did not provide a basis for an injunction. While Caneland disputed details of the promissory notes and mortgage, it did not deny the notes were covered by security documents. Its vague assertions were effectively admissions of the substantial facts. As the property was subject to foreclosure due

Uploaded by

Wendell Leigh Oasan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
349 views2 pages

Caneland Sugar Corp. v. Alon

Caneland Sugar Corp. v Alon G.R. No. 142896, September 12, 2007 Caneland Sugar Corporation filed a complaint against the Land Bank of the Philippines and a sheriff seeking to enjoin an auction sale of its property. The regional trial court denied the injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also denied injunctive relief, finding that Caneland did not dispute its loan obligation and its allegations did not provide a basis for an injunction. While Caneland disputed details of the promissory notes and mortgage, it did not deny the notes were covered by security documents. Its vague assertions were effectively admissions of the substantial facts. As the property was subject to foreclosure due

Uploaded by

Wendell Leigh Oasan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Caneland Sugar Corp.

v Alon
G.R. No. 142896, September 12, 2007
Facts:

Caneland Sugar Corporation (petitioner) filed with the Regional Trial Court a
complaint for damages, injunction, and nullity of mortgage against the Land Bank of
the Philippines (respondent) and Sheriff Eric B. de Vera praying for issuance of a
temporary restraining order enjoining respondent and the Sheriff from proceeding
with the auction sale of petitioners property.

RTC: Held in abeyance the auction sale.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial courts Order. DENIED.

Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Injunction. Denied.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the
Decision, which was eventually denied by the CA in a Resolution.

Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.

Petitioner contends in the main that the RTCs act of authorizing the foreclosure of
its property amounts to a prejudgment of the case since it amounts to a ruling that
respondent has a valid mortgage in its favor. Petitioner also argues, among others,
that Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 385 is not applicable inasmuch as at the time of
the lease to Sunnix, Inc., the management and control of its operations has already
been virtually taken over by respondent.

On the other hand, respondent maintains that: P.D. No. 385 prohibits the issuance
of an injunctive order against government financial institutions; the CA did not
commit any grave abuse of discretion; the RTC Order merely dealt with the
propriety of the injunctive order and not the validity of the mortgage; and the issue
of the propriety of the injunctive order has been rendered moot and academic by the
foreclosure sale conducted and the issuance of a certificate of sale by the sheriff.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner should be granted with any injunctive relief. No.
RATIO:

Petitioner does not dispute its loan obligation with respondent. Petitioners bone of
contention before the RTC is that the promissory notes are silent as to whether they
were covered by the Mortgage Trust Indenture and Mortgage Participation on its
property covered by TCT No. T-11292. It does not categorically deny that these
promissory notes are covered by the security documents.

These vague assertions are, in fact, negative pregnants, i.e., denials pregnant with
the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not
squarely denied. As defined in Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, a
negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an
affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It
is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the
pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the
words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, has been held
that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.

Petitioners allegations do not make out any justifiable basis for the granting of any
injunctive relief. Even when the mortgagors were disputing the amount being
sought from them, upon the non-payment of the loan, which was secured by the
mortgage, the mortgaged property is properly subject to a foreclosure sale. This is
in consonance with the doctrine that to authorize a temporary injunction, the plaintiff
must show, at least prima facie, a right to the final relief.

You might also like