1) Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan from Cavite Development Bank (CDB) and mortgaged a property to secure the loan. When Guansing defaulted, CDB foreclosed on the property.
2) Lolita Chan Lim later offered to purchase the property from CDB. She paid a 10% down payment as earnest money.
3) However, it was discovered that the property originally belonged to Guansing's father Perfecto, not Rodolfo. A court had restored Perfecto's title.
1) Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan from Cavite Development Bank (CDB) and mortgaged a property to secure the loan. When Guansing defaulted, CDB foreclosed on the property.
2) Lolita Chan Lim later offered to purchase the property from CDB. She paid a 10% down payment as earnest money.
3) However, it was discovered that the property originally belonged to Guansing's father Perfecto, not Rodolfo. A court had restored Perfecto's title.
1) Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan from Cavite Development Bank (CDB) and mortgaged a property to secure the loan. When Guansing defaulted, CDB foreclosed on the property.
2) Lolita Chan Lim later offered to purchase the property from CDB. She paid a 10% down payment as earnest money.
3) However, it was discovered that the property originally belonged to Guansing's father Perfecto, not Rodolfo. A court had restored Perfecto's title.
1) Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan from Cavite Development Bank (CDB) and mortgaged a property to secure the loan. When Guansing defaulted, CDB foreclosed on the property.
2) Lolita Chan Lim later offered to purchase the property from CDB. She paid a 10% down payment as earnest money.
3) However, it was discovered that the property originally belonged to Guansing's father Perfecto, not Rodolfo. A court had restored Perfecto's title.
G.R. No. 131679, February 1, 2000 Facts: On or about June 15, 1983, a certain Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan in the amount of P90, 000.00 from CDB, to secure which, he mortgaged a parcel of land situated at No. 63 Calavite Street, La Loma, Quezon City registered in his name. As Guansing defaulted in the payment of his loan, CDB foreclosed the mortgaged. On March, 15, 1984, the mortgaged property was sold to CDB as the highest bidder. Guansing failed to redeem. On June 16, 1988, private respondent Lolita Chan Lim, offered to purchase the property from CDV. The written Offer to Purchase states in part: We hereby offer to purchase your property at 63 Calavite Street, La Loma, Quezon City for P300, 000.00 under the following terms and conditions: 1. 10% option money 2. Balance payable in cash 3. Provided that the property shall be cleared of illegal occupants or tenants Lim paid CDB P30, 000.00 as option money, however, after some time following up the sale, she discovered that the subject property was originally registered in the name of Perfecto Guansing, father of mortgagor Rodolfo Guansing. Rodolfo succeeded in having the property registered in his name. It appears, however, that the father Perfecto, instituted a civil case in the RTC Branch 83, of QC, for the cancellation of his sons title. On March 23, 1984 the trial court rendered a decision restoring Perfectos previous title. Issues: a. Was the sale between CDB and Mrs. Lim perfected? b. Was the foreclosure sale valid? Held: Yes. Contracts are not define by the parties thereto but by principles of law. In determining the nature of a contract, the court are not bound by the name or title given to it by the contracting parties. In the case at bar, the sum of P30,000.00 although denominated in the offer to purchase as option money is actually in the nature of earnest money or down payment when considered with the other terms of the offer. It is because when Mrs. Lim offered to buy the property the 10% so called option money forms part of the purchase price as contemplated under Art. 1482 of the NCC. Given CDBs acceptance of Lims offer to purchase, it appears that a contract of sale was perfected and, indeed, partially executed because of the partial payment of the purchase price. There is however, a serious legal obstacle to such sale, rendering it impossible for CDB to perform its obligation as seller to deliver and transfer ownership of the property. Nemo dat quod non habet, one cannot give what on does not have. CDB never acquired a valid title to the property because the foreclosure sale, by virtue of which the property had been awarded to CDB as highest bidder, is likewise void since the mortgagor was not the owner of the property foreclose. A foreclosure sale, though essentially forced sale is still a sale in accordance with Art. 1458 of NCC. Being a sale, the rule that the seller must be the owner of the thing sold also applies in a foreclosure sale. This is the reason Art. 2085 of the NCC, in providing for essential requisites of the contract of mortgage and pledge, requires, among other things, that the mortgagor or pledgor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged, in anticipation of a possible foreclosure sale should the mortgagor default in the payment of loan.
JUDGE WRIGHT DENIES CHASE'S (WAMU) MOTION TO DISMISS 5 CAUSES OF ACTION-JAVAHERI CASE - FEDERAL COURT CALIF. - wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, violation of Cal Civ. Code Sec. 2923.5, quasi contract, and declaratory relief.