[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
362 views1 page

355 Fiestan Vs CA, G.R. No. 81552, 1990

The spouses Fiestan owned a parcel of land that was foreclosed by Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) due to their failure to pay their mortgage. DBP acquired the land through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale and subsequently sold the land to Francisco Peria. The spouses Fiestan challenged the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was valid, finding that as the mortgagee, DBP had the authority to purchase the land at the foreclosure sale to protect its own interests, as allowed by Act No. 3135. The Court therefore denied the petition of the spouses Fiestan and upheld the lower courts' decisions validating the foreclosure sale

Uploaded by

Joseff Anthony Fernandez
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
362 views1 page

355 Fiestan Vs CA, G.R. No. 81552, 1990

The spouses Fiestan owned a parcel of land that was foreclosed by Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) due to their failure to pay their mortgage. DBP acquired the land through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale and subsequently sold the land to Francisco Peria. The spouses Fiestan challenged the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was valid, finding that as the mortgagee, DBP had the authority to purchase the land at the foreclosure sale to protect its own interests, as allowed by Act No. 3135. The Court therefore denied the petition of the spouses Fiestan and upheld the lower courts' decisions validating the foreclosure sale

Uploaded by

Joseff Anthony Fernandez
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/ 1

G.R. No.

81552 May 28, 1990


DIONISIO FIESTAN and JUANITA ARCONADO, petitioners
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, LAOAG CITY
BRANCH; PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VIGAN BRANCH, ILOCOS SUR,
FRANCISCO PERIA and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS SUR, respondents.

Facts: Respondent Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) was able to acquire a parcel of
land in Ilocus Sur owned by petitioner spouses Fiestan, through extrajudicial foreclosure of said
property, after the latter failed to pay their mortgage indebtedness to the former. The petitioners
executed a Deed of Sale in favor of DBP which was registered on September 28, 1979, with the
certificate of sale which the Provincial Sheriff issued on the same day of the bidding. When
spouses Fiestan failed to redeem their parcel of land within the 1 year period, the Register of Deeds
cancelled their title over the subject property and issued one to DBP. Subsequently, DBP sold the
lot to Francisco Peria, so the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur cancelled DBPs title over said
property and issued the Title to Perias name, who later on secured a tax declaration for said lot
and accordingly paid the taxes due thereon. Peria thereafter mortgaged said lot to the PNB-Vigan
Branch as security for his loan. When the spouses Fiestan were ordered to vacate the property by
the Provincial Sheriff, as they were still in possession of such, they refused to leave and filed a
complaint instead in the RTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur for annulment of sale, mortgage and
cancellation of transfer certificates of title against DBP, PNB-Vigan Branch, Ilocos Sur, Francisco
Peria and the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur. The trial court dismissed the complaint, declaring
valid the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property in favor of the DBP and its
subsequent sale to Francisco Peria as well as the real estate mortgage constituted in favor of PNB-
Vigan. The Court of Appeals affirmed such Decision.

Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial foreclosure sale was valid

Ruling: The petitioners sought the nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale in the instant case
on the ground that the DBP cannot acquire by purchase the mortgaged property at the public
auction sale by virtue of par. (2) of Article 1491 and par. (7) of Article 1409 of the Civil Code
which prohibits agents from acquiring by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction either in
person or through the mediation of another, the property whose administration or sale may have
been entrusted to them unless the consent of the principal has been given. However, the Court
found this contention erroneous. The Court ruled that the power to foreclose is not an ordinary
agency that contemplates exclusively the representation of the principal by the agent but is
primarily an authority conferred upon the mortgagee for the latter's own protection, as provided
under Section 5 of Act No 3135, as amended, which is a special law that must prevail over the
Civil Code which is a general law. Even in the absence of statutory provision, there is authority to
hold that a mortgagee may purchase at a sale under his mortgage to protect his own interest or to
avoid a loss to himself by a sale to a third person at a price below the mortgage debt. The express
mandate of Section 5 of Act No. 3135, as amended, amply protects the interest of the mortgagee
in this jurisdiction. Hence, the Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate courts decision.

You might also like