ASG Law

Tag: property foreclosure

  • Navigating Third-Party Claims in Property Foreclosure: Insights from a Landmark Philippine Case

    Understanding the Limits of Third-Party Claims in Foreclosure Proceedings

    Lourdes C. Akiapat, et al. vs. Summit Bank (G.R. No. 222505 and G.R. No. 222776, June 28, 2021)

    Imagine waking up to find that your share in a family property has been foreclosed upon without your knowledge or consent. This scenario became a reality for some co-owners in a recent Supreme Court case in the Philippines, highlighting the complexities of third-party claims in property foreclosure. The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land that was mortgaged to secure loans, and the subsequent foreclosure proceedings that entangled non-borrowing co-owners in a legal battle with the bank.

    The central legal question revolved around whether non-borrowing co-owners, who had signed the mortgage as security for their co-owners’ loans, could claim exclusion from the foreclosure sale. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case offers crucial insights into the rights of third parties in such situations and the procedural steps necessary to protect their interests.

    Legal Context: Third-Party Claims and Foreclosure

    In the Philippines, foreclosure is a legal process by which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan. The process can be judicial or extrajudicial, with the latter governed by Act No. 3135, as amended.

    A third-party claim, or terceria, is a legal remedy available to a person who claims ownership or a right to possession of property that has been levied upon or attached in an execution process. Under Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, such a claim can be made by any person other than the judgment obligor or their agent, provided they file an affidavit of their title or right to possession.

    The concept of pro indiviso shares is also relevant here. This term refers to the undivided interest that co-owners have in a property. When a property is mortgaged by co-owners, the mortgage is considered indivisible, meaning the entire property is subject to the mortgage, regardless of individual shares.

    For example, if a family owns a piece of land together and one member takes out a loan using the land as collateral, all co-owners might be affected by a foreclosure if they signed the mortgage. This scenario underscores the importance of understanding the implications of co-signing a mortgage, even if one does not directly benefit from the loan.

    Case Breakdown: From Mortgage to Foreclosure

    The case began when several co-owners of a property in Benguet, including Domacia Galipen, Renato Cachero, Richard Cachero, Teresita Mainem, Jeanette Gamboa, and others, executed promissory notes and a real estate mortgage with Summit Bank to secure their individual loans. Non-borrowing co-owners, such as Lourdes Akiapat, Billy Cachero, and Noel Cachero, also signed the mortgage.

    When the borrowing co-owners defaulted on their loans, Summit Bank initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure in 1999, which was nullified by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 2007 due to excessive interest rates. The RTC upheld the validity of the mortgage but ordered a new accounting of the loans with reduced rates.

    Following the RTC’s decision, Summit Bank demanded payment again, and upon non-payment, proceeded with a second foreclosure in 2010. The non-borrowing co-owners, unaware of the proceedings, only learned of the foreclosure when a demand to vacate was issued. They filed a third-party claim, arguing that their shares should be excluded from the foreclosure.

    The RTC initially sided with the non-borrowing co-owners, ordering Summit Bank to reapply for foreclosure but to exclude their shares. However, Summit Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that the non-borrowing co-owners were not third parties but parties to the mortgage.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that:

    “As mortgagors, the petitioners already lost all interests over the foreclosed property after the expiration of the redemption period. On the other hand, Summit Bank, as purchaser, became the absolute owner thereof when no redemption was made.”

    The Court further clarified that:

    “The property of third persons like Lourdes, et al. which has been expressly mortgaged to guarantee an obligation to which they are foreign, is directly and jointly liable for the fulfillment thereof.”

    Practical Implications: Lessons for Property Owners and Lenders

    This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the implications of signing a mortgage, especially in co-owned properties. Non-borrowing co-owners who sign as mortgagors are bound by the mortgage and cannot claim exclusion from foreclosure proceedings based solely on their non-borrower status.

    For property owners, it is crucial to:

    • Seek legal advice before signing any mortgage agreement, especially if the property is co-owned.
    • Understand that signing a mortgage makes one’s share in the property liable for the loan, regardless of personal benefit from the loan.
    • Monitor any legal proceedings involving the mortgaged property to protect one’s interests.

    For lenders, the case reinforces the legal standing to proceed with foreclosure on the entire mortgaged property, even if some co-owners did not directly benefit from the loan.

    Key Lessons

    • Co-owners should be cautious about signing as mortgagors for loans they do not benefit from.
    • Third-party claims are not applicable to parties to the mortgage agreement.
    • Legal advice is essential before entering into mortgage agreements to understand the full scope of liability.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a third-party claim in the context of foreclosure?

    A third-party claim, or terceria, is a legal remedy for someone who claims ownership or a right to possession of property that is being foreclosed upon, provided they are not the judgment obligor or their agent.

    Can a co-owner who did not take out a loan be excluded from a foreclosure?

    No, if a co-owner signed the mortgage as a mortgagor, their share in the property is subject to foreclosure, regardless of whether they benefited from the loan.

    What should co-owners do to protect their interests in a mortgaged property?

    Co-owners should consult with a lawyer before signing any mortgage agreement and stay informed about any legal proceedings related to the property.

    What happens if a foreclosure sale is nullified?

    If a foreclosure sale is nullified, the parties revert to their original positions, and the lender may proceed with a new foreclosure or pursue other legal remedies for debt recovery.

    How can a lender ensure a valid foreclosure?

    Lenders should ensure compliance with all legal requirements, including proper notification and adherence to interest rate regulations, to avoid nullification of the foreclosure sale.

    ASG Law specializes in real estate and mortgage law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your property rights are protected.

  • Upholding Buyer’s Rights: Developer’s Responsibility in Contract to Sell Disputes

    The Supreme Court ruled that a real estate developer who fails to deliver a promised property due to foreclosure must either replace it with a similar property or, if that’s impossible, reimburse the buyer’s payments with interest. This decision emphasizes the developer’s accountability to fulfill contractual obligations, safeguarding the rights of buyers in real estate transactions and setting a precedent for consumer protection in property development.

    Foreclosed Dreams: Can a Developer Dodge Responsibility After a Property Deal Gone Wrong?

    In the case of Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Spouses Artemio Jurado and Consuelo O. Jurado, the central issue revolves around a contract to sell a residential lot. Solid Homes entered into an agreement with Spouses Calica in 1977, who later assigned their rights to Spouses Jurado in 1983. After the assignment, Spouses Jurado discovered that Solid Homes had mortgaged the property, leading to its foreclosure. Solid Homes promised a substitute property but failed to deliver, prompting Spouses Jurado to file a complaint for specific performance and damages. This case highlights the obligations of a developer when a property under a contract to sell is foreclosed and the rights of the buyer-assignee.

    The initial contract between Solid Homes and Spouses Calica included a clause that the vendee agrees not to “sell, cede, encumber, transfer or in any manner do any act which will affect his/her right under this contract without the prior written approval of the Vendor and until all stipulations of this contract shall have been fulfilled.” Despite this clause, Solid Homes acknowledged the assignment of rights to Spouses Jurado through several actions, such as preparing the Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights, charging a transfer fee, and issuing a credit memorandum. Solid Homes’ actions indicated consent to the assignment and transfer of rights, leading to the question of whether Solid Homes could deny responsibility to Spouses Jurado.

    The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) initially dismissed Spouses Jurado’s complaint, but this decision was later reversed by the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which found Solid Homes liable. The Office of the President (OP) affirmed this decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the OP’s ruling, except for the award of damages and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to determine whether Solid Homes was obligated to provide a replacement property or pay damages to Spouses Jurado. One significant point in the Court’s analysis was whether Solid Homes’ prior actions constituted a waiver of the non-assignment clause in the original contract.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that it generally addresses only questions of law and that factual findings of the CA, especially when consistent with those of the lower courts, are binding. Several exceptions to these rules exist, but none were found to benefit Solid Homes’ position. The Court noted Solid Homes’ undisputed acts of preparing a standard form of the Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights, charging a transfer fee, crediting payment in favor of Spouses Jurado, and requiring documents necessary to replace the subject property all signified consent to the transfer.

    Moreover, the Court clarified that the non-assignment clause in the original contract did not invalidate the transfer between Spouses Calica and Spouses Jurado. “Firstly, basic is the rule that the transfer of rights takes place upon the perfection of the contract, and the ownership of the right thereunder, including all appurtenant accessory rights, is acquired by the assignee,” the Court stated, “who steps into the shoes of the original creditor as subrogee, the moment the contract is perfected.” This principle underscores that once the assignment is perfected, the assignee (Spouses Jurado) has the right to enforce the contract to the same extent as the assignor (Spouses Calica).

    The Court also dismissed Solid Homes’ defenses of res judicata, forum shopping, estoppel, prescription, and laches. The initial HLURB complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled. The 10-year prescriptive period for bringing an action for specific performance was reckoned from the date the cause of action accrued, which was when Solid Homes mortgaged the subject property in February 1983. The Court stated that “a cause of action arises when that which should have been done is not done, or that which should not have been done is done.”

    Furthermore, the prescriptive period was interrupted by Spouses Jurado’s extrajudicial demands upon Solid Homes to replace the property through letters dated October 23, 1992, and August 7, 1996, and the filing of the initial complaint in 2000. As such, when Spouses Jurado re-filed their complaint in 2005, their cause of action had not yet prescribed. The Court determined that Spouses Jurado were not guilty of laches, as they had consistently pursued their rights under the Contract to Sell. The Court pointed out that when spouses Jurado were made aware that Solid Homes mortgaged the subject property, which mortgage was eventually foreclosed, the latter made representation that it will replace the lot.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the obligations under a contract to sell, defining it as a “bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon.” The Court reiterated that Spouses Jurado, as assignees, had the right to enforce the Contract to Sell to its full extent. The obligation of the prospective seller, which is in the nature of an obligation to do, is to sell the property to the prospective buyer upon the happening of the positive suspensive condition, that is, the full payment of the purchase price. This duty remains even if the property faces unforeseen encumbrances, highlighting the developer’s continuing responsibility.

    The Court emphasized that the failure of the prospective buyer to fully pay the purchase price in a contract to sell is not a breach of contract under Article 1191, which pertains to the right to rescind reciprocal obligations. However, the Court also noted that a contract to sell is susceptible to rescission for substantial breaches, such as the seller’s failure to comply with their obligation to sell the property despite the happening of the suspensive condition. As such, the ruling ultimately orders Solid Homes to replace the foreclosed lot with another of the same area, quality, and location as stipulated in the original contract. Upon replacement, Spouses Jurado are obligated to pay the remaining balance of P145,843.35 with interest. If Solid Homes fails to provide an acceptable replacement, they must reimburse Spouses Jurado the amount of P480,262.95 with interest.

    Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of interest rates. Citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, the Court held that in the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand. The Court adjusted the interest rates to reflect the applicable legal standards. Therefore, the correct rate of interest of 12% per annum should be imposed on the total payments made from the date of the demand to replace the property, or on February 22, 1983, until June 30, 2013 and the interest rate of 6% per annum is imposed from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Solid Homes was obligated to provide a replacement property or pay damages to Spouses Jurado after the original property was foreclosed. This involved determining the validity of the assignment of rights and the applicability of prescription and laches.
    Did Solid Homes consent to the transfer of rights? Yes, the Court found that Solid Homes consented to the transfer of rights from Spouses Calica to Spouses Jurado. This was evidenced by their actions such as preparing the Deed of Assignment, charging a transfer fee, and crediting payments in favor of Spouses Jurado.
    What is the significance of the non-assignment clause in the contract? The non-assignment clause was not strictly enforced in this case. The Court found that Solid Homes’ actions implied consent to the assignment, and the clause did not explicitly void any assignment made without prior written approval.
    What is specific performance, and how does it apply here? Specific performance is a remedy that requires a party to fulfill their contractual obligations. In this case, Spouses Jurado sought specific performance to compel Solid Homes to provide a replacement property as initially promised.
    What is res judicata, and why didn’t it apply? Res judicata prevents the relitigation of issues already decided in a prior case. It didn’t apply here because the first complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled with additional evidence.
    What are prescription and laches, and why didn’t they bar the claim? Prescription refers to the time limit for bringing a legal action, while laches is the unreasonable delay in asserting a right. Neither barred the claim because the prescriptive period was interrupted by extrajudicial demands, and Spouses Jurado actively pursued their claim.
    What are Solid Homes’ obligations under the Supreme Court’s ruling? Solid Homes must either replace the foreclosed lot with a comparable property or, if that’s impossible, reimburse Spouses Jurado for their payments with interest. The interest rates were set at 12% per annum until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum thereafter.
    What is the impact of P.D. 957 on this case? P.D. 957, or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree, provides additional protection for buyers. While the Court acknowledged the developer was determined to be the subdivision developer, Section 18 regarding mortgages was not explored because of the lack of factual finding as to whether Solid Homes secured clearance. The remedies provided under P.D. 957 are expressly made to be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may be available under existing laws.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations in real estate transactions. Developers must honor their commitments to buyers, and failure to do so can result in significant financial and legal repercussions. This case sets a precedent for holding developers accountable and protecting the rights of buyers in similar situations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Spouses Artemio Jurado and Consuelo O. Jurado, G.R. No. 219673, September 02, 2019