Foreclosure
Foreclosure
Foreclosure
REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGE
RULE 68
Flores vs Lindo
RULING:
A mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a
personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other
words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not both. By such
election, his cause of action can by no means be impaired, for each of the
two remedies is complete in itself. On the other hand, a rule that would
authorize the plaintiff to bring a personal action against the debtor and
simultaneously or successively another action against the mortgaged
property, would result not only in multiplicity of suits so offensive to justice
and obnoxious to law and equity but also in subjecting the defendant to the
vexation of being sued in the place of his residence or of the residence of
the plaintiff, and then again in the place where the property lies.
FORECLOSURE
It is a remedy available to the mortgagee in which he subjects
the mortgaged property to the satisfaction of the obligation.
It presupposes something more than a mere demand to surrender
possession of the object of the mortgage. It denotes the
procedure adopted by the mortgagee to terminate the rights of
the mortgagor on the property and includes the sale itself.
Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non payment of a
mortgage indebtedness.
Jurisdiction
An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage is an action
involving interest in real property.
Under B.P. 129 as amended where the action is one
involving title to or possession of real property or any
interest therein, the determination of jurisdiction shall be
made by inquiring into the assessed value of the
property.
Procedure in Judicial
Foreclosure Of REM
STEP 1: Filing of a complaint in court for the foreclosure of real estate
mortgage.
The complaint shall set forth the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
The amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage debt or obligation
Interest
Other charges as approved by the court
Costs (Section 2, Rule 68)
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION
It is the right to extinguish the mortgage and retain
ownership of the property by paying the debt.
The period mentioned in the judgment of the court is the
period within which the mortgagor may start exercising
his equity of redemption.
The payment may be made even after the foreclosure
sale provided it is made before the sale is confirmed by
the court.
Limpin vs IAC
RULING:
The rights and interests of petitioners Limpin and Sarmiento to the property in
question are subordinate to those of respondent Ponce, who holds a prior and senior
lien. The sale to Ponce, as the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale of the two lots
in question should have been confirmed, subject to Limpin's (and now Sarmiento's
equity to redemption. As held in Santiago v. Dionisio the registration of the lands,
first in the name of Limpin and later of Sarmiento, was premature. At most what
they were entitled to was the registration of their equity of redemption.
Moreover the superiority of the mortgagee's lien over that of a subsequent
judgment creditor is now expressly provided in Rule 39, Section 16 of the Revised
Rules of Court, which states with regard to the effect of levy on execution that it
shall create a lien in favor of a judgment creditor over the right title and interest of
the judgment debtor in such property at the time of the levy, subject to the liens or
encumbrances then existing.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
It is a right granted to a mortgagor to reacquire the property
even after the confirmation of the sale and the registration
of the certificate of sale.
There is no right of redemption in a judicial foreclosure of
mortgage under Rule 68. This right exists only in
extrajudicial foreclosures where there is always a right of
redemption within one year from the registration of the sale
Tiglao vs Botones
RULING:
A hearing is a very essential part of the proceedings because the
hearing gives the interested parties an opportunity to lay before the
court their reasons why the sale should or should not be confirmed, and
it is the result of this hearing which diverts the title if the sale is
confirmed.
In the case of Grimalt vs. Velasquez, this Court, relying upon its
decision in Raymundo vs. Sunico, ruled that "in order that a foreclosure
sale may be validly confirmed by the court, it is necessary that a hearing
be given the interested parties at which they may have an opportunity
to show cause why the sale should not be confirmed; that a failure to
give notice is good cause for setting aside the sale."
If the debt for which the mortgage was held is not all due as
provided in the judgment, as soon as a sufficient portion of the
property has been sold to pay the total amount and costs due,
the sale shall terminate; and afterwards, as often as more
becomes due for principal or interest and other valid charges,
the court may on motion order more to be sold. But if the
property cannot be sold in portions without prejudice to the
parties, the whole shall be ordered to be sold in the first
instance and the entire debt and costs shall be paid, if the
proceeds of the sale be sufficient therefor, there being a rebate
of interest where such rebate is proper. (Sec. 5, Rule 68)
Deficiency Judgment
If upon the sale of any real property, there be a balance
due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the
sale, the court upon motion shall render judgment
against the defendant for any such balance, for which
he may be personally liable to the plaintiff. (Sec. 6, Rule
68)
Execution may issue immediately if the balance is all
due at the time of the rendition of judgment otherwise
the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at such time
as the balance remaining becomes due under the terms