Scribd
Upload
128 views1 page

Cahayag v. Commercial Credit Corporation..

Uploaded by

May RM
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views1 page

Cahayag v. Commercial Credit Corporation..

Uploaded by

May RM
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CAHAYAG v.

COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION

G.R. NO. 168078, January 13, 2016

FACTS:

Dulos Realty and Development Corporation (DRDC) is the registered owner of five (5) parcels of
land located in Las Pinas. In order for Dulos Realty to secure a loan amounting to P300,000.00 with
Commercial Credit Corporation (CCC), Dulos Realty on December 20, 1980 executed a Real Estate
Mortgage (REM) to its owned parcels of land. On March 29, 1981, DRDC together with Fabio Cahayag
entered into a Contract to Sell with one of the subject properties mortgaged to CCC. Dulos Realty and
Development Corporation also entered into a Contract to Sell with several petitioners named Conrado
Rivera, Milagros Escalona and Iluminada Baldoza. Dulos Realty and Development Corporation defaulted
in its payment, thus, prompting CCC to file an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding. CCC emerged as the
highest bidder at the auction sale. On December 21, 1983, CCC sold the subject properties to an
individual named Qua. Qua then filed ejectment suits against Cahayag and other petitioners in MTC Las
Pinas. The petitioners stated that the REM did not specify the improvements in the parcels of land to be
included in the foreclosure. MTC rendered its decision in favor of Qua. The petitioners filed for
annulment of sheriff’s sale in RTC and said that the housing units should not be included in the deed of
mortgage. RTC rendered its decision in favor of petitioners. Upon appeal, Court of Appeals (CA) rendered
its decision and reversed the decision of RTC. The CA stated that the housing units is included in the REM
and that the extrajudicial foreclosure was valid.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA is correct in its decision to reversed the RTC decision stating that the housing
units is also covered by the REM.

RULING:

Yes. The CA is correct in its decision. The Supreme Court (SC) stated that in the Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage, it refers only to the parcels of land and housing units was not included. However, upon
viewing the provisions written in the deed, the SC pointed out the provision that specifically states the
part which is “together with all the buildings and/or other improvements now existing or which may
hereafter be placed or constructed thereon” which means that the housing units would also form part of
the Real Estate Mortgage since the housing units were constructed at the time during which the REM
was already executed. In this case, it clearly establishes that the housing units which are considered
improvements should be included in the REM.

You might also like