SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221954. June 16, 2021.]
LUCILA L. DIENTE AND HEIRS OF FLAVIO DIENTE, NAMELY, LUCILA L. DIENTE, ET AL., petitioners,vs. SPS. ANGEL AND LOURDES GRABATO, EDWARD GRABATO, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221954 (Lucila L. Diente and Heirs of Flavio Diente, namely, Lucila L. Diente, et al. v. Sps. Angel and Lourdes Grabato, Edward Grabato, et al.). — The petition is denied.
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioners Lucila Diente and Heirs of Flavio Diente, namely, Lucila L. Diente, et al. (petitioners), failed to attach to their petition 1 the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Surallah, South Cotabato, Branch 26 (trial court). This compels the denial of the petition pursuant to Section 4 (d) in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, thus:
Rule 45, Section 4:
Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. (2a)
Rule 45, Section 5:
Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
For failure to attach these material portions of the record pertaining to the trial court's ruling, the Court can only speculate on their contents. Notably, petitioners have not adduced any good reason to relax the rules in its favor. Hence, even on this ground alone, the petition should be dismissed outright.
But even on the merits, the petition must fail.
Article 1315 of the Civil Code provides that a contract of sale is deemed a consensual contract perfected by mere consent, thus:
Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
In Spouses Beltran v. Spouses Cangayda, 4 the Court held that a contract of sale is perfected the moment there is a meeting of minds on the consideration and the thing object of the contract. Upon perfection of the contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold. 5
Here, a contract of sale involving the subject properties was perfected between Northern Mindanao Development Bank (NMDB) and petitioners. As it was, on March 30, 1994, petitioners fully paid NMDB the total amount of P4,000,000.00 as purchase price for all the foreclosed properties. 6 NMDB confirmed this payment. 7
Nonetheless, the perfection of the sale here is not one of the modes of acquiring ownership as decreed in Article 712 of the Civil Code, viz.:
Article 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.
Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of prescription.
The Court elucidated in San Lorenzo Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 8 that the perfection of a contract of sale should not be confused with its consummation. A sale is not a mode but merely a title. As such, a mode is the legal means by which dominion or ownership is created, transferred or destroyed. A title is only the legal basis by which to affect dominion or ownership. Therefore, sale does not transfer or affect ownership. It only creates the obligation to transfer ownership. 9
Meanwhile, in Mahinay v. Dura Tire and Rubber Industries, Inc., 10 the Court held that the "date of the sale" referred to in Section 6 is the date the certificate of sale is registered with the Register of Deeds. This is because the sale of registered land does not "take effect as a conveyance, or bind the land" until it is registered. 11
Here, records show that NMDB failed to register the Certificate of Sale dated May 16, 1991 following the auction sale of the foreclosed properties. It also failed to consolidate the subject properties in its name. Without the registration and consolidation which are deemed operative acts to convey or affect subject properties insofar as third persons are concerned, NMDB cannot, as yet, transfer ownership of the same to petitioners.
As regards respondents Spouses Angel and Lourdes Grabato, Edward Grabato, et al. (respondents) right to redeem the subject properties, Section 6 of Act No. 3135 12 provides:
Section 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
Garcia v. Ocampo, 13 pronounced that in auction sales, the law provides a period of twelve (12) months within which to redeem the property sold. This period shall begin to run not from the date of sale but from the time of registration of the sale in Office of the Register of Deeds. 14
Mahinay v. Dura Tire and Rubber Industries, Inc., 15 further illustrated:
The Spouses Pahang loaned P1,500,000.00 from Metrobank and mortgaged a parcel of land as security for the mortgage. When the Spouses Pahang failed to pay their loan, Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed the property. At the public sale, Metrobank emerged as the highest bidder and a corresponding certificate of sale was issued to it. The Certificate of Sale was registered on January 27, 1998.
On December 29, 1998, Metrobank wrote the Spouses Pahang to remind them of the expiration of their right of redemption on January 27, 1999.
The right of redemption of the Spouses Pahang thus expired on January 27, 1999. Metrobank consolidated its ownership over the properties, and a transfer certificate of title was issued in its name. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, the registration of the Certificate of Sale of the foreclosed properties serves as the reckoning point of the statutory one (1) year redemption period. Considering that NMDB failed to register the subject properties here, the period of redemption is deemed not to have even commenced, let alone, prescribed. Indeed, respondents' right to redeem the subject properties still subsists. In fact, their one-year redemption period shall only commence from the registration of the certificate of sale in favor of NMDB.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 28, 2015 and Resolution dated December 7, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02343-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-34.
2.Id. at 35-57.
3.Id. at 70-81.
4.See G.R. No. 225033, August 15, 2018, citing Macasaet v. R. Transport Corp., 561 Phil. 605, 612-613 (2007).
5.Ace Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd., 723 Phil. 742, 751 (2013).
6.Rollo, p. 40.
7.Id. at 39.
8. 490 Phil. 7, 20 (2005).
9.Id.
10. 810 Phil. 57, 67 (2017).
11.Id.
12. Entitled "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real-Estate Mortgages," approved on March 6, 1924.
13. 105 Phil. 1102, 1108 (1959).
14.Id.
15.Supra note 10 at 70-71.