Skip to main content

GR NO.78508 PHILIPPINE NATION BANK VS FILEMON REMIGIO Case Digest

TITLE: PHILIPPINE NATION BANK VS FILEMON REMIGIO GR NO.78508
VITUG,J.:

FACTS: On 25 August 1967, Remigio obtained from PNB a P65,000 loan secured by a real estate mortgage covering 5 parcels of land in Isabela. On November 17, 1970 Remigio defaulted hence PNB extrajudicially foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the encumbered assets for P87,082. However the sheriff’s sale was only registered with the register of deeds on October 11, 1972, two years after the said sale.
On Oct 21, 1972, P.D. No. 27 was enacted into law which mandated an agrarian reform. Pursuant thereto, an "Operation Land Transfer Program" was launched and among the areas it covered were the parcels of land in the mortgage contract between Remigio and PNB. This in effect transferred the rights of the plaintiff to the tenants-beneficiaries in favor of the Land Bank of the Philippines.

ISSUE:
1. WON the said mortgaged lands were still under Remigio’s right of redemption when PD 27 was enacted.

2. WON application of PD 27 in the case at bar would be a violation of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution

HELD:
1. Yes, when P.D. No. 27, was enacted on 21 October 1972, the parcels of land in dispute were clearly still subject to Remigio’s right of redemption. In the foreclosure of real property by banking institutions, as well as in the extrajudicial foreclosure by any other mortgagee, the mortgagor could redeem the property within one year from date of registration of the deed of sale in the appropriate Registry of Deeds and not on date of foreclosure.
2. No, although P.D. No. 27 had the effect of impairing the obligation of the duly executed mortgage contracts affecting said lands. There is no question, however, that the land reform program of the government under P.D. No. 27), was undertaken in the exercise of the police power of the state. It is settled that the one limitation on the contract clause arises from the police power; the reason being that public welfare is superior to private rights. The situation here, is like that in eminent domain proceedings, where the state expropriates private property for public use, and the only condition to be complied with is the payment of just compensation. Technically, the condemnation proceedings do not impair the contract to destroy its obligations, but merely appropriate or take for public use. As the Land Bank is obliged to settle the obligations secured by the mortgage, the mortgagee is not left without any compensation.

This Court, likewise, in a number of cases has expressed the dictum that police power subordinates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al CASE DIGEST

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al  G.R. No. 152619-20 BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corp.  G.R. No. 152870-71 THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (Chairman), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (Member) and DIRECTOR HORACIO RAMOS (Member) vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corporation  FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 in favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463, which requires that the assignment of a mining right be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renew...
Post a Comment
Read more

G.R. No. 115104 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals CASE DIGEST

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998 FACTS: The Supreme Court recognized the possessory right of Macawiwili and Omico over mining claims in Benguet as against Philex Mining Corp. On the surface of these mining claims,Philex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bunkhouses that were used byPhilex in its other mining claims. Philex sought to expropriate the surface of the area wherethese improvements were located pursuant to Section 59 of PD 463. HELD: The land cannot be expropriated. Expropriation demands that the land be private land.When the Supreme Court awarded the possessory rights over the land to Macawiwili andOmico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character – to be utilizedfor mining operations. Property already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if donedirectly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the d...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fernandez vs HRET CASE DIGEST GR No 187478

Fernandez vs HRET | GR No 187478 | December 21, 2009 Topic: House of Representatives > Residency Requirement  Facts:  On the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. In his Certificate of Candidacy, he indicated that he is a resident of Sta. Rosa City, Laguna. Private respondent sought the cancellation of petitioner’s COC and the latter’s disqualification as a candidate on the ground of an alleged material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence, because during past elections, he had declared Pagsanjan, Laguna as his address, and Pagsanjan was located in the Fourth Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. Private respondent likewise claimed that petitioner maintained another house in Cabuyao, Laguna, which was also outside the First District. The petition, however, was dismissed by COMELEC for lack of merit.  On June 27, 2007, petitioner was...
Post a Comment
Read more