This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-11-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The September 11, 2001 Decision referred to in the assailed Order was rendered by this Court in G.R. No. 140398, entitled Col. Francisco Dela Merced, substituted by his heirs, namely, BLANQUITA E. DELA MERCED, LUIS CESAR DELA MERCED, BLANQUITA E. DELA MERCED (nee MACATANGAY), and MARIA OLIVIA M. PAREDES, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and SPOUSES VICTOR and MILAGROS MANLONGAT.[5] The fallo of the said Decision reads: | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| After a protracted litigation, the case reached this Court as G.R. No. 140398. On September 11, 2001, a Decision[16] was rendered in petitioners' favor. The Court nullified GSIS's foreclosure of the subject properties because these lots were never part of its mortgage agreement with the Zulueta spouses. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads: | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The order to cancel the titles of GSIS over Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2 allegedly could not be enforced because GSIS no longer had title over these two lots. GSIS had already conveyed these lots in 1985 and 1988 to Diogenes Bartolome (Lot 8) and Antonio Dimaguila [Dimaguila] (Lot 7), respectively. At present, Lot 7 of Block 2 is titled in Dimaguila's name (TCT No. PT-67466)[36] while Lot 8 of Block 2 is titled in the name of Bartolome's assignee, Zenaida Victorino [Victorino] (TCT No. 53031).[37] While both titles contain notices of lis pendens carried over from GSIS's title,[38] the RD claimed that the writ of execution must first be modified to include the cancellation of derivative titles of the GSIS title. | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Even granting that the lots were indeed mortgaged by the original owner, the sale in favor of petitioner would still be superior to the mortgage. In Dela Merced v. Government Service Insurance System,[26] a case involving a suit for annulment of a foreclosure sale instituted by the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor, against the mortgagee and the buyer of the lots at the foreclosure sale, it was held that the unrecorded sale is preferred for the reason that the original owner's act of parting with his ownership of the thing sold, as in the case at bar, divested him of ownership and free disposal of that thing so as to be able to mortgage it again. Conformably, the unregistered sale of the lots to petitioner should be upheld over the mortgage and foreclosure sale from which respondent allegedly derived its rights. | |||||