G.R. Nos. 173090-91 - UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SPOUSES RODOLFO T. TIU AND VICTORIA N. TIU.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Complaint and lifting and setting aside the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. No pronouncement as to damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit. [26] In upholding the validity of the Restructuring Agreement, the RTC held that the spouses Tiu failed to present any evidence to prove either fraud or intimidation or any other act vitiating their consent to the same. The exact obligation of the spouses Tiu to Union Bank is therefore P104,668,741.00, as agreed upon by the parties in the Restructuring Agreement. As regards the contention of the spouses Tiu that they have fully paid their indebtedness, the RTC noted that they could not present any detailed accounting as to the total amount they have paid after the execution of the Restructuring Agreement. [27] On January 4, 2005, Union Bank filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, [28] protesting the finding in the body of the December 16, 2004 Decision that the residential house on Lot No. 639 is not owned by the spouses Tiu and therefore should be excluded from the real properties covered by the real estate mortgage. On January 6, 2005, the spouses Tiu filed their own Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or New Trial. [29] They alleged that the trial court failed to rule on their fourth cause of action wherein they mentioned that they turned over the following titles to Union Bank: TCT Nos. 30271, 116287 and 116288 and OCT No. 0-3538. They also prayed for a partial new trial and for a declaration that they have fully paid their obligation to Union Bank. [30] On January 11, 2005, the spouses Tiu received from Sheriff Oano a Second Notice of Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale of Lot No. 639 to be held on February 3, 2005. To prevent the same, the Tiu spouses filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction with Application for TRO/Writ of Preliminary Injunction. [31] The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00253. The Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order on January 27, 2005. [32] On January 19, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying Union Bank's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the Tiu spouses' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or New Trial. [33] Both the spouses Tiu and Union Bank appealed the case to the Court of Appeals. [34] The two appeals were given a single docket number, CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 00190. Acting on a motion filed by the spouses Tiu, the Court of Appeals consolidated CA-G.R. SP No. 00253 with CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 00190. [35] On April 19, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution finding that there was no need for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction as the judgment of the lower court has been stayed by the perfection of the appeal therefrom. [36] On May 9, 2005, Sheriff Oano proceeded to conduct the extrajudicial sale. Union Bank submitted the lone bid of P18,576,000.00. [37] On June 14, 2005, Union Bank filed a motion with the Court of Appeals pr