Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , the Assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED as follows: V) the Deed of Absolute Sale between plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellant David Raymundo is declared null and void, being a Deed of Equitable Mortgage; VI) the Deed of Sale between defendant-appellant David Raymundo and defendant-appellant Tensorex [is] declared null and void; VII) defendant-appellant David Raymundo to reconvey the subject property to plaintiff-appellant’s [sic] upon plaintiff-appellant[…
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , the Assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED as follows: V) the Deed of Absolute Sale between plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellant David Raymundo is declared null and void, being a Deed of Equitable Mortgage; VI) the Deed of Sale between defendant-appellant David Raymundo and defendant-appellant Tensorex [is] declared null and void; VII) defendant-appellant David Raymundo to reconvey the subject property to plaintiff-appellants [sic] upon plaintiff-appellant[s] payment to defendant-appellant David Raymundo of [P]3,865,000.00 plus legal interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint, until it is fully paid, or if reconveyance is no longer feasible, for defendants-appellants Raymundo and Tensorex to solidarily pay plaintiff-appellant the fair market value of the subject property by expert appraisal; VIII) defendants-appellants Raymundo and Tensorex to solidarily pay plaintiff-appellant, as follows: a) [P]100,000.00 in exemplary damages; b) [P]100,000.00 in attorneys fees; c) Cost[s] of suit. Defendants-appellants COUNTERCLAIM is hereby DISMISSED . SO ORDERED . [6] (Emphasis ours) Said CA decision eventually became final and executory on January 11, 2005, and entry of judgment was made. [7] Galen moved for the execution of the CA decision, submitting that the writ of execution should order Raymundo and Tensorex to solidarily pay the following: (1) the current fair market value of the property less Galens mortgage debt of P3,865,000.00 with legal interest; and (2) the award of damages and costs of suit. Raymundo and Tensorex opposed the motion, arguing that the CA decision provides for two alternatives one , for Raymundo to reconvey the property to Galen after payment of P3,865,000.00 with legal interest or, two , if reconveyance is no longer feasible, for Raymundo and Tensorex to solidarily pay Galen the fair market value of the property. [8] In its Order [9] dated February 3, 2006, the RTC granted Galens motion and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. The property (land and improvements) was appraised by Asian Appraisal, Inc. at P49,470,000.00. [10] Subsequently, the appointed special sheriff issued a Notice of Reconveyance/Notice of Demand to Pay [11] on March 8, 2007. The sheriff also issued on April 4, 2007 a Notice of Levy on Execution [12] to the Register of Deeds of Makati City over the rights and interest of Tensorex over the property, including all buildings and improvements covered by TCT No. 149755. On July 16, 2007, the special sheriff issued a Notice of Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate Property, [13] stating that the total outstanding balance of mortgage indebtedness as of January 25, 1988 and interest for 225 months with 2.25% interest is [P]37,108,750.00 plus costs x x x, [14] and sale at public auction was set on August 8, 2007. Raymundo filed a Manifestation and Urgent Motion [15] objecting to the auction sale and expressing his willingness to reconvey the property upon p
G.R. NO. 171250 - SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA, VS. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 171250 -
CaseG.R. No. 121703 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, DR. RAMON L. COCSON, JOSEFINA G. COCSON, EDITHA G. TIGLAO, FE F. GOMEZ, AND ATTY. PEDRO F. MARTINEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 121703 -
CaseG.R. No. 172036 - SPOUSES FAUSTINO AND JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPOUSES MELITON GALVEZ AND HELEN GALVEZ, AND CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JULIANA O. MOTAS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERLITA DE LA CRUZ, AND DIOGENES G. BARTOLOME. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 172036 -