Wednesday, February 22, 2012

La Campana Development Corporation vs. DBP [G.R. No. 146157 February 13, 2009]

Facts: An action instituted by petitioner against the respondent for nullification of foreclosure sale eventually reached the CA. Judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent ordering the petitioner to surrender possession of the subject properties and to pay “such sums of money unlawfully collected and/or received by way of rentals from the properties”. Respondent thus filed with the RTC a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner opposed on the ground that the CA Decision is incomplete as it is totally silent as to what amount was unlawfully collected and from what period up to what period is covered by the said decision. The RTC favored petitioner and suspended the execution pending the filing of a necessary pleading by respondent to clarify the exact amount due. The CA, however, disagreed with the RTC and held that there is no need for a “clarification”. Hence, the present petition. 

Issue: Whether the CA Decision was complete and capable of execution even if the dispositive portion does not state the precise amount to be paid and the particular date from whence to begin computing such amount. 

Held: YES. A decision should be taken as a whole and considered in its entirety to get the true meaning and intent of any particular portion thereof. The reading by the RTC of the fallo of the CA Decision should have included the statements of the body thereof. This is sanctioned by the aphorism that a final and executory judgment may nonetheless be “clarified” by reference to other portions of the decision of which it forms a part. In the case at bar, the CA Decision acknowledged that there existed in the record a Certificate of Sale dated 31 March 1976 issued by the Sheriff and subsequently annotated on the titles of the subject properties. Hence, although the said decision did not categorically state the date of the registration of sale, which was 30 April 1976, such precision is not absolutely necessary nor the lack thereof fatal to the certainty of the judgment. In foreclosure proceedings, the buyer becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the prescribed period of redemption. Thus, fixing the date at one year from said registration, or on 1 May 1977, is easily discernible as the logical consequence of the meaning of the period stated.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "La Campana Development Corporation vs. DBP [G.R. No. 146157 February 13, 2009]"

Post a Comment