Heirs of Felicidad Canque v.
CA (Short title) - Bank had no right over the other 50% of the conjugal property pertaining to
GR # 119184 | 275 SCRA 741 | July 21, 1997
Petition: Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeking annulment of decision of CA
Petitioner: THE HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE namely: SURVIVING SPOUSE
MARCELINO and children MARIANO, LEONILO, PERFECTA, MEXIQUELA,
EMILIO, MARCELINO JR., ALEJANDRO, the Heirs of JESUS and ADRIANO, all
surnamed CANQUE
Respondent: CA, THE RURAL BANK OF MATANAO (DAVAO DEL SUR), INC,
and/or CONRADO ANTONIO
DOCTRINE
Every court must take cognizance of the decisions of the Supreme Court because they
are proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice and form part of the legal system.
Members of the bench have a responsibility to know and to apply the latest holdings of
the Supreme Court.
FACTS
- Sps. Marcelino Canque and Felicidad Canque were the registered owners of
a parcel of land with an area of 2 hectares.
- Sps. sold 750 sqm. to the Iglesia ni Kristo Church.
- Sps. obtained a loan of P15,000 from The Rural Bank of Mantano secured by
a real estate mortgage over the parcel of land. The loan was fully paid.
- A month after Felicidad Canque passed away, Marcelino Canque obtained by
himself, another loan of P25,000 secured by the same conjugal property.
- Marcelino failed to pay the second loan. Thus, the Bank extrajudicially
foreclosed the REM 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 RD 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.
LC: held 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.
- However, dissatisfied with verdict, plaintiffs appealed to CA.
CA: Reversed and Set Aside.
- Plaintiffs filed the action 7 years from the registration of the Sheriffs certificate
of sale, or beyond the five-year prescriptive period as provided under Sec. 119
of Commonwealth Act 141. Thus, plaintiffs-appellees right of redemption
had already prescribed.
- However, the lost right of redemption of the parcel of land only applies to the
conjugal share of 50% of Marcelino
the late Felicidad Canque which share of 50% automatically passed to her
heirs.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the CA committed a serious error of law by not considering recent decisions
of the SC regarding foreclosure of Rural Banks.
RULING & RATIO
- YES
- In Rural Bank of Davao City vs. Court of Appeals the court held:
o 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
sheriffs certificate of sale.
o 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 Court of Appeals committed a reversible error because it palpably failed
to consider in its August 25, 1994 Decision the ruling of the Supreme Court
promulgated twenty months earlier on January 27, 1993.
- In Peltan Development vs. Court of Appeals the Court held:
o Every court must take cognizance of the decisions of the Supreme
Court because they are proper subjects of mandatory judicial
notice and form part of the legal system.
o Members of the bench have a responsibility to know and to
apply the latest holdings of the Supreme Court.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The
assailed Decision of the Respondent Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. The
dispositive portion of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur
in Civil Case No. 2688 allowing petitioner to redeem the subject property is hereby
REINSTATED.
Page 1 of 1