FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219805. March 25, 2019.]
HEIRS OF SPOUSES BERNABE TANDOG AND HOSPICIA ANTARAN, NAMELY: CHRISNOJI A. TANDOG, ESPEAMORI A. TANDOG, * ARIEL A. TANDOG, NOEL A. TANDOG, AZZUR A. TANDOG, NAOIMI A. TANDOG AND CANOYOS A. TANDOG, petitioners, vs.PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR OF THE RURAL BANK OF LIBERTAD, (ANTIQUE), INC., PENUELITO B. DUMALAOG AND HIS WIFE AND SPOUSES JOEL B. DUMALAOG AND KAREN DUMALAOG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219805 (HEIRS OF SPOUSES BERNABE TANDOG and HOSPICIA ANTARAN, namely: CHRISNOJI A. TANDOG, ESPEAMORI A. TANDOG, ARIEL A. TANDOG, NOEL A. TANDOG, AZZUR A. TANDOG, NAOIMI A. TANDOG and CANOYOS A. TANDOG, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR OF THE RURAL BANK OF LIBERTAD, (ANTIQUE), INC., PENUELITO B. DUMALAOG AND HIS WIFE AND SPOUSES JOEL B. DUMALAOG AND KAREN DUMALAOG, Respondents.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY this appeal against the decision 1 and resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on January 22, 2015 and July 15, 2015, respectively, for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming with modification the decision dated September 21, 2012 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Kalibo, Aklan dismissing the complaint for nullity of mortgage, extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, and deed of sale in Civil Case No. 6909.
The Court sees no error on the part of the CA when it declared the subject mortgage contract as valid under Republic Act No. 720 3(Rural Bank Act); that the subject property may be validly disposed during the period of redemption; and that laches had prevented the petitioners from questioning the validity of the mortgage and the extrajudicial foreclosure.
It is settled that factual findings of the trial court, as well as that of the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. In the absence of any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court. 4 CAIHTE
At any rate, lands covered by free patents may be mortgaged in favor of rural banks under the Rural Bank Act. 5 Hence, the petitioners cannot insist on applying the prohibition under the Public Land Act. 6 Moreover, the petitioners erroneously argued that based on our ruling in Rural Bank of Compostela v. Court of Appeals, 7 the conditions under the Public Land Act should have first been satisfied before applying the provisions of the Rural Bank Act. We ruled in the said case that:
While it may be true that under the Rural Banks Act (R.A. No. 720), as amended by R.A. No. 5939, a mortgage may be validly effected as an exception, there is no evidence at all that the conditions prescribed under the latter for the validity of the mortgage were complied with. Since the latter law is an exception to the prohibitions mentioned in the Free Patent, it was incumbent upon the party who claims the exception to prove fulfillment of the requisites therefor. (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the records, the respondents complied with the conditions of the law, particularly the presentment of the title and the annotation of the said encumbrance in the title. Hence, We do not find any reason to reverse the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition; AFFIRMS the January 22, 2015 decision and July 15, 2015 resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04619; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* In some parts of the records, Espeamori is spelled as Esfeamori.
1. Rollo, pp. 31-43; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos with the concurrence of Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.
2. Id. at 52-55.
3. As amended by Republic Act No. 5939.
4. Castillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106472, August 7, 1996, 260 SCRA 374, 375.
5. Abelgas, Jr. v. Comia, G.R. No. 163125, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 7, 21.
6. Act No. 2874, as amended.
7. G.R. No. 122801, April 8, 1997, 271 SCRA 76, 87-88.