Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 233 views

    37 Sps Celones Vs MetroBank

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    Spouses Celones obtained loans from Metrobank and mortgaged properties as collateral. When they defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Spouses Celones then offered to redeem the properties by taking out a loan from Atty. Dionido. Metrobank issued a conditional notice of approval but later refused to issue a certificate of redemption, claiming its rights over the properties were transferred to Atty. Dionido. Spouses Celones sued Metrobank. The Supreme Court ruled that no novation occurred since it was not explicitly stated, so Metrobank must issue the certificate of redemption to Spouses Celones upon payment of the redemption amount to Atty. Dionido.

    Copyright:

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

    37 Sps Celones Vs MetroBank

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    233 views2 pages
    Spouses Celones obtained loans from Metrobank and mortgaged properties as collateral. When they defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Spouses Celones then offered to redeem the properties by taking out a loan from Atty. Dionido. Metrobank issued a conditional notice of approval but later refused to issue a certificate of redemption, claiming its rights over the properties were transferred to Atty. Dionido. Spouses Celones sued Metrobank. The Supreme Court ruled that no novation occurred since it was not explicitly stated, so Metrobank must issue the certificate of redemption to Spouses Celones upon payment of the redemption amount to Atty. Dionido.

    Original Title

    37 Sps Celones vs MetroBank

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Spouses Celones obtained loans from Metrobank and mortgaged properties as collateral. When they defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Spouses Celones then offered to redeem the properties by taking out a loan from Atty. Dionido. Metrobank issued a conditional notice of approval but later refused to issue a certificate of redemption, claiming its rights over the properties were transferred to Atty. Dionido. Spouses Celones sued Metrobank. The Supreme Court ruled that no novation occurred since it was not explicitly stated, so Metrobank must issue the certificate of redemption to Spouses Celones upon payment of the redemption amount to Atty. Dionido.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    233 views2 pages

    37 Sps Celones Vs MetroBank

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    Spouses Celones obtained loans from Metrobank and mortgaged properties as collateral. When they defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Spouses Celones then offered to redeem the properties by taking out a loan from Atty. Dionido. Metrobank issued a conditional notice of approval but later refused to issue a certificate of redemption, claiming its rights over the properties were transferred to Atty. Dionido. Spouses Celones sued Metrobank. The Supreme Court ruled that no novation occurred since it was not explicitly stated, so Metrobank must issue the certificate of redemption to Spouses Celones upon payment of the redemption amount to Atty. Dionido.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sps Celones vs MetroBank

    G.R. No. 215691. November 21, 2018.


    TIJAM, J.:
    Facts:
    Spouses Francis and Felicisima Celones, petitioner, with their company Processing
    Partners and Packaging Corporation (PPPC), obtained various loans from Metrobank and for
    which they mortgaged various properties with total obligation of  P64,474,058.73. However,
    they defaulted in paying their loan and Metrobank foreclosed all the mortgaged properties and
    the latter was the winning bidder. The certificates of sale were issued on July 2007, and upon
    prior expiration of one year redemption period, Metrobank filed petitions for issuance of writs of
    possession before several courts to take possession of the foreclosed properties. Sometime in
    2007, the spouses Celones offered to redeem the properties from Metrobank wherein Metrobank
    issued a Conditional Notice of Approval for Redemption stating that the spouses offered to
    redeem the property in the amount of P55,000,000.00 to be paid on Dec 20, 2007. Atty Crisolito
    Dionido extended them a loan and issued a MOA wherein the parties agreed for the subrogation
    of Atty. Dionido to all the rights, interests of Metrobank. On the belief that they have redeemed
    the foreclosed properties, the Spouses Celones demanded from Metrobank the issuance of a
    Certificate of Redemption however refused on the ground that all its rights and interests over the
    foreclosed properties had been transferred to Atty. Dionido, as such, he should be the one to
    issue the said certificate. Spouses Celones filed before the trial court a case for Declaratory
    Relief and Injunction to compel Metrobank to issue the certificates of redemption and to deliver
    to them the certificates of title over the foreclosed properties. The RTC ruled in favor of the
    petitioners declaring that petitioners are redemptioners of their foreclosed properties and directs
    defendant Metrobank to execute and deliver the corresponding certificates of redemption. Upon
    appeal, CA reversed the decision of the RTC directing petitioners to surrender the possession of
    the foreclosed properties of Atty Dionido and pay the latter the loan and attorneys fees. Upon
    denial of motion for reconsideration, petitioners filed this petition.
    Issue:
    Whether Spouses Celones were able to redeem the foreclosed properties from Metrobank
    using the loan acquired from Atty. Dionido?
    Rule of law:

    Application:
    Novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation by changing its objects or principal
    obligations, by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating a third person
    to the rights of the creditor. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which
    substitute the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old
    and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other. Thus, “[n]ovation must
    be stated in clear and unequivocal terms to extinguish an obligation. It cannot be presumed and
    may be implied only if the old and new contracts are incompatible on every point.”
    Conclusion:
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April
    14, 2014 and the Resolution dated December 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV
    No. 96236 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
    Accordingly, a new one is entered ORDERING Atty. Crisolito O. Dionido to issue a
    Certificate of Redemption in favor of Spouses Francis N. Celones and Felicisima Celones. The
    Spouses Francis N. Celones and Felicisima Celones are hereby ORDERED to pay the amount of
    P55 Million plus legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum to Atty. Crisolito O. Dionido
    counted from finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.

    You might also like