Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Cristobal - MD

    Uploaded by

    mei_2208
    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) provided a loan to Spouses Cristobal which was secured by real estate mortgages. The Cristobals failed to repay the loan, resulting in foreclosure of the properties. MBTC emerged as the highest bidder at auction and was issued a Certificate of Sale. However, the Cristobals refused to vacate the properties. MBTC filed a petition for a writ of possession, but it was denied because MBTC did not provide evidence that it had consolidated ownership of the properties according to the requirements of Act 3135. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The Supreme Court determined that consolidation of ownership is a question of fact, not law, and remanded the case for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Cristobal - MD

    Uploaded by

    mei_2208
    92 views1 page
    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) provided a loan to Spouses Cristobal which was secured by real estate mortgages. The Cristobals failed to repay the loan, resulting in foreclosure of the properties. MBTC emerged as the highest bidder at auction and was issued a Certificate of Sale. However, the Cristobals refused to vacate the properties. MBTC filed a petition for a writ of possession, but it was denied because MBTC did not provide evidence that it had consolidated ownership of the properties according to the requirements of Act 3135. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The Supreme Court determined that consolidation of ownership is a question of fact, not law, and remanded the case for

    Original Description:

    Evidence digest

    Original Title

    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Cristobal - Md

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) provided a loan to Spouses Cristobal which was secured by real estate mortgages. The Cristobals failed to repay the loan, resulting in foreclosure of the properties. MBTC emerged as the highest bidder at auction and was issued a Certificate of Sale. However, the Cristobals refused to vacate the properties. MBTC filed a petition for a writ of possession, but it was denied because MBTC did not provide evidence that it had consolidated ownership of the properties according to the requirements of Act 3135. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The Supreme Court determined that consolidation of ownership is a question of fact, not law, and remanded the case for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views1 page

    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Cristobal - MD

    Uploaded by

    mei_2208
    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) provided a loan to Spouses Cristobal which was secured by real estate mortgages. The Cristobals failed to repay the loan, resulting in foreclosure of the properties. MBTC emerged as the highest bidder at auction and was issued a Certificate of Sale. However, the Cristobals refused to vacate the properties. MBTC filed a petition for a writ of possession, but it was denied because MBTC did not provide evidence that it had consolidated ownership of the properties according to the requirements of Act 3135. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The Supreme Court determined that consolidation of ownership is a question of fact, not law, and remanded the case for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY vs. CRISTOBAL G.R. No.

    175768
    Facts:
    Spouses Edgardo M. Cristobal and Ma. Teresita S. Cristobal obtained a loan from petitioner Metropolitan
    Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) which was secured by two real estate mortgages and its three
    amendments, which Sps. Critobal executed in favor of MBTC. Sps. Cristobal failed to pay their loan,
    resulting in the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale of their mortgaged properties. MBTC emerged as
    the highest bidder, so a Certificate of Sale was issued in its name. However Sps. Cristobal refuses to
    vacate, hence the MBTCs petition seeking a Writ of Possession over the foreclosed properties. The petition
    was denied because the records is bereft of any indication that MBTC has consolidated its ownership over
    the subject parcels of land in accordance with Section 7 of Act 3135, and consequently advise MBTC to refile the same for consolidation. Petitioner alleged that the there is absolutely nothing in ACT 3135 which
    provides that consolidation of ownership over the foreclosed property is required before a writ of
    possession may be issued.
    Issue:
    Whether denial of Court of Appeals is correct.
    Held:
    YES.
    The issue of whether or not petitioner has consolidated ownership in its name is a question of fact best left
    to the determination of the lower court. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is
    on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity
    of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the
    probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must
    rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue
    invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a
    question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same;
    rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
    evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact. Here, no question of law is
    involved, for it is clear that petitioner has the right to possession once it has established that ownership
    has been consolidated in its name. Consolidation is essentially factual in nature, as it requires the
    presentation of evidence.
    REMANDED.

    You might also like