Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 284 views

    Spouses Francisco Sierra Vs

    Uploaded by

    a
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a loan and mortgage. Petitioners mortgaged properties to secure a loan for Goldstar Conglomerates, which defaulted. The bank foreclosed on the mortgages. Petitioners argued they were misled into signing and were not properly notified. The court held the applicable prescription period was 4 years from discovery of the mistake, which was over 7 years prior. Thus, the petitioners' action was barred by laches.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Francisco Sierra Vs

    Uploaded by

    a
    284 views7 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a loan and mortgage. Petitioners mortgaged properties to secure a loan for Goldstar Conglomerates, which defaulted. The bank foreclosed on the mortgages. Petitioners argued they were misled into signing and were not properly notified. The court held the applicable prescription period was 4 years from discovery of the mistake, which was over 7 years prior. Thus, the petitioners' action was barred by laches.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding a loan and mortgage. Petitioners mortgaged properties to secure a loan for Goldstar Conglomerates, which defaulted. The bank foreclosed on the mortgages. Petitioners argued they were misled into signing and were not properly notified. The court held the applicable prescription period was 4 years from discovery of the mistake, which was over 7 years prior. Thus, the petitioners' action was barred by laches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    284 views7 pages

    Spouses Francisco Sierra Vs

    Uploaded by

    a
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a loan and mortgage. Petitioners mortgaged properties to secure a loan for Goldstar Conglomerates, which defaulted. The bank foreclosed on the mortgages. Petitioners argued they were misled into signing and were not properly notified. The court held the applicable prescription period was 4 years from discovery of the mistake, which was over 7 years prior. Thus, the petitioners' action was barred by laches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    G.R. No.

    197857 September 10, 2014


    Prescription of Actions
    Facts

     On May 31, 1983, Goldstar Conglomerates, Inc.
    (GCI), represented by Guillermo Zaldaga (Zaldaga),
    obtained from Summa Bank, now respondent Paic
    Savings and Mortgage Bank, Inc. (PSMB) a loan in
    the amount of P1,500,000.00 as evidenced by a Loan
    Agreement. As security therefor, GCI executed in
    favor of PSMB six (6) promissory notes6 in the
    aggregate amount of P1,500,000.00 as well as a Deed
    of Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land
    covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
    308475.
     As additional security, petitioners Francisco Sierra,
    Rosario Sierra, and Spouses Felix Gatlabayan and

    Salome Sierra mortgaged four(4) parcels of land in
    Antipolo City. Eventually, GCI defaulted in the
    payment of its loan to PSMB.
     The latter to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage
    on the subject properties. Since petitioners failed to
    redeem the subject properties within the redemption
    period, their certificates of title were cancelled and
    new ones were issued in PSMB’s name.
     Petitioners averred that under pressing need of
    money, with very limited education and lacking

    proper instructions, they fell prey to a group who
    misrepresented to have connections with Summa
    Bank and, thus, could help them secure a loan.
    Petitioners likewise lamented that they were not
    furnished copies of the loan and mortgage
    documents, or notified/apprised of the assignment
    to PSMB, rendering them unable to comply with
    their obligations under the subject deed.
     They further claimed that they were not furnished a copy of
    the statement of account nor a copy of the petition for
    foreclosure prior to the precipitate extrajudicial foreclosure


    and auction sale which failed to comply with the posting
    and notice requirements.
     PSMB maintained that: (a) it acted in good faith with
    respect to the subject transactions and that petitioners’
    action should be directed against the group who deceived
    them;27 (b) the subject properties were mortgaged to
    securean obligation covered by the loan agreement with
    GCI;28 (c) the mortgage was valid, having been duly signed
    by petitioners before a notary public;29 (d) the foreclosure
    proceedings were regular, having complied with the
    formalities required by law;30 and (e) petitioners allowed
    time to pass without pursuing their purported right against
    Summa Bank and/or PSMB.
    Issue

    WON THE ACTION HAS
    PRESCRIBED AND BARRED
    BY LACHES
    Held

     Petitioners contends that the applicable provision is the ten-year
    prescriptive period of mortgage actions under Article 1142 of the
    Civil Code. Based on case law, a "mortgage action" refers to an
    action to enforce a right necessarily arising from a mortgage.59 In
    the present case, petitioners are not "enforcing"their rights under
    the mortgage but are, in fact, seeking to be relieved therefrom.The
    complaint filed by petitioners is, therefore, not a mortgage action
    as contemplated under Article 1142.
     Since the complaint for annulment was anchored on a claim of
    mistake, i.e., that petitioners are the borrowers under the loan
    secured by the mortgage, the action should have been brought
    within (4) years from its discovery. The discovery of the averred
    mistake should appear to be reckoned from June 19, 1984.

     As the records disclose, despite notice on June 19, 1984 of the


    scheduled foreclosure sale, petitioners, for unexplained reasons,
    failed to impugn the real estate mortgage and oppose the public
    auction sale for a period of more than seven (7) years from said
    notice.

    You might also like