FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232897. November 20, 2017.]
HERMINIA CANDO, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES AURORA AND CLAUDIO OLAZO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: TIADCc
"G.R. No. 232897 (Herminia Cando v. Spouses Aurora and Claudio Olazo). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
There being no reversible error in the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 27, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 102427, the petition is DENIED. The ruling of the CA finding that the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Decision in Civil Case No. 81-0-98 did not comply with the constitutional requirement to distinctly state the law and the facts on which the Decision was based is likewise AFFIRMED. The Decision of the RTC contained only a three-paragraph discussion occupying a single page of the Decision with only one citation of law, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
As ruled by the CA on the merits, a valid mortgage contract requires that the mortgagor be absolute owner of the property mortgaged. In this instance, OCT No. P-4582 was issued in 1989, two years after the execution of the mortgage contract. Clearly, the respondents could not have validly encumbered the subject land to petitioner in 1987. However, as ruled by the CA, the mortgage over the residential houses, considered an immovable, is valid. Thus, the CA properly set aside the RTC's ruling granting the judicial foreclosure of mortgage over the land and correctly modified the directive to the Sheriff to sell it at a public auction.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court