Heirs of Felicidad Canque Vs CA

Heirs of Felicidad Canque v.
CA
FACTS
Spouses Marcelino Canque and Felicidad Canque were the registered

owners of a parcel of land with an area of 2 hectares. The said sold 750
sqm. to the Iglesia ni Kristo Church. A new Transfer of Title (No. T-8730)
was issued to said spouses by the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur.
On October 12, 1977, said spouses obtained a loan of Fifteen Thousand

(P15,000.00) from the Rural Bank of Mantano secured by a real estate
mortgage over the parcel of land under the new Transfer Certificate of Title
(No. T-8730) with an area of 23,608 square meters. The spouses’ loan of
P15,000.00 with the defendant bank was duly paid.
On Feb 2, 1980, Felicidad Canque passed away, a month later Marcelino

Canque obtained by himself, another loan of P25,000 secured by the same
conjugal property. (Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8730 as collateral).
(The defendant bank allegedly considered this second loan as an extension

of the first loan as the real estate mortgage of the first loan had remained
uncancelled, despite the earlier payment of the first loan by the said
spouses.)
Marcelino failed to pay the second loan. Thus, the Bank extrajudicially
foreclosed the real estate mortgage and sold the property to itself as the
highest bidder.
On September 9, 1983, Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was registered. Thus,

Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18357 was issued to the Bank by the
Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur.
After 7 yrs. from the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale,

Marcelino and his children offered to redeem the property, but defendant
bank refused. Hence, they filed a complaint.
The lower court declared that the real estate mortgage between plaintiff
and defendant is valid and that the plaintiffs can exercise their right of
redemption by paying the amount of the purchase price with interest
thereon at the rate of one per centum per month up to the date of her
deposit of the redemption price. Dissatisfied with the decision, plaintiff
appealed to the CA.
The CA however, reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court
and declared that plaintiff’s right of redemption has already prescribed
since they filed the action 7 years from the registration of the Sheriff’s
certificate of sale which is beyond the 5-year prescriptive period under Se.
119 of Commonwealth Act 141.
However, the lost right of redemption of the parcel of land only applies to
the conjugal share of 50% of Marcelino. And the Bank had no right over
the other 50% of the conjugal property pertaining to the late Felicidad
Canque which share of 50% automatically passed to her heirs.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
W/N the CA committed a serious error of law by not considering recent

decisions of the SC regarding foreclosure of Rural Banks.
HELD: Yes
The SC mentioned the case of Rural Bank of Davao City vs. Court of
Appeals where it held that if the land is mortgaged to a rural bank under R.
A. No. 720, as amended, the mortgagor may redeem the property within
two (2) years from the date of foreclosure or from the registration of the
sheriff’s certificate of sale.
If the mortgagor fails to exercise such right, he or his heirs may still
repurchase the property within five (5) years from the expiration of the two
(2) year redemption.
The SC held that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error
because it palpably failed to consider in its August 25, 1994 Decision the
aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Court promulgated twenty months
earlier on January 27, 1993. Unfortunately, this is not the first time for this
Court to come upon such a slip.
In Peltan Development vs. Court of Appeals the Court ruled that “every
court must take cognizance of decisions this Court has rendered because
they are proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice x x x[and] more
importantly form part of the legal system.” We stress that members of the
bench have a responsibility to know and to apply the latest holdingsof the
Supreme Court. The nature of their calling requires no less.

Heirs of Felicidad Canque Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Felicidad Canque Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Felicidad Canque Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Felicidad Canque v.

Spouses Marcelino Canque and Felicidad Canque were the registered

On October 12, 1977, said spouses obtained a loan of Fifteen Thousand

On Feb 2, 1980, Felicidad Canque passed away, a month later Marcelino

(The defendant bank allegedly considered this second loan as an extension

On September 9, 1983, Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was registered. Thus,

After 7 yrs. from the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale,

Hence, this petition.

W/N the CA committed a serious error of law by not considering recent

You might also like