Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , judgement is hereby rendered as follows: (a) Dismissing as it is hereby DISMISSED the instant petition for lack of merit; and, (b) Dismissing as it is hereby DISMISSED the counterclaims of the [petitioners]. SO ORDERED.
Accordingly, a certificate of sale was issued in their favor on February 10, 1987. On April 2, 1987, the sale was registered with the Register of Deeds of Pasig City and annotated at the back of De Castro's title. De Castro failed to redeem the property. [9] When requested to surrender his owner's duplicate copy of CCT No. 2826, De Castro filed a petition for annulment of foreclosure proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which then had the jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. In the said petition, De Castro argued that petitioners have no legal personality to invoke the Condominium Act and should have availed of other remedies in law; the annotation of assessment dues and certificate of sale, and the extra-judicial proceedings were highly irregular and devoid of factual and legal basis; that the assessments imposed were excessive, oppressive, unconscionable, and arbitrary; and that the petitioners have no special power of attorney or authority was granted to them nor was there any agreement between the parties to that effect. [10] For their part, petitioners countered that the foreclosure was lawful pursuant to the Master Deed to which De Castro was bound as a unit owner. Petitioners further averred that the assessment was fair and reasonable as the rate in computing the same was the same applied to all condominium unit owners. As for the foreclosure proceedings, De Castro was notified thereof but never made any opposition nor did he attend the foreclosure sale. [11] Sometime in February 1992, during the pendency of the case, De Castro passed away [12] and substituted by Heirs of Cresenciano C. De Castro (respondents). Ruling of the Regional Trial Court In its March 31, 2009 Decision, [13] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211, ruled for the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings instituted by the petitioners. The RTC thoroughly discussed that the evidence on record clearly show that De Castro was aware of his unsettled dues and penalties. The RTC also held that De Castro cannot deny that he is bound by the Master Deed, which gave authority to the petitioners to issue assessments against him for his unpaid dues and penalties. The RTC also cited the By-Laws of the condominium corporation that gives authority to the Board of Directors to enforce collection of unpaid assessments duly levied in by any of the remedies provided by the Republic Act No. 4726 [14] or the Condominium Act and other pertinent laws, such as foreclosure. The RTC, disposed, thus: WHEREFORE , judgement is hereby rendered as follows: (a) Dismissing as it is hereby DISMISSED the instant petition for lack of merit; and, (b) Dismissing as it is hereby DISMISSED the counterclaims of the [petitioners]. SO ORDERED.