This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-11-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The only issue that was elevated to the Court of Appeals was whether the trial court correctly denied petitioner Marino's motion for execution on the ground of non-compliance with section 412 of the Local Government Code requiring barangay conciliation. At that point, petitioner Marino has yet to file his Answer where she could dispute the allegation that her "Agreement" with respondent spouses Salcedo constitutes a pactum commissorium. As she alleged in her memorandum filed before this Court, the "Agreement" which provided for the voluntary surrender of the mortgaged property to petitioner in case of non-payment of the obligation was entered upon on the face of foreclosure proceedings conducted by petitioner by virtue of the previous real estate mortgage. It only seeks to avoid another foreclosure since a foreclosure proceeding was already conducted.[9] Its purpose was to give private respondents another extension in redeeming their property.[10] In her comment before the Court of Appeals, petitioner attached the Notice of Extra Judicial Sale dated November 14, 1991,[11] Affidavit of Publication of the Publisher of Olongapo News,[12] Certificate of Sale dated December 16, 1991[13] and a letter[14] dated September 27, 1993 from the Office of the Clerk of Court and City Sheriff of Olongapo to spouses Salcedo giving them fifteen (15) days to surrender the premises in view of the expiration of the period of redemption. The status of this prior foreclosure proceedings after the Court of Appeals declared that the "Agreement" contains a pactum commissorium is not revealed in the records of the case. | |||||