Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81152:gr-155113-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:01:15+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 155113 - Philippine Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corporation, et al.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v.PRIDISONS REALTY CORPORATION, ANTONIO GONZALES, BORMACHECO, INC., NAZARIO F. SANTOS, TERESITA CHUA TEK, CHARITO ONG LEE, and ERNESTO SIBAL, Respondent.
The petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBComm) seeks the reversal of the decision1 dated April 26, 2002 and the resolution2 dated September 5, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 62576 through a petition for review on certiorari3 tiled under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Pridisons Realty Corporation (Pridisons) is the owner of a 1,988-square meter land located in New Manila, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (276613) RT-1160. On November 23, 1989, Pridisons executed in favor of PBComm a deed of real estate mortgage over the land and the improvements existing or to be erected thereon to secure the P7,000,000.00 loan it acquired from the bank. The deed of real estate mortgage was registered and annotated on Pridisons title on the same day it was executed.4 Pridisons thereafter transferred all its rights over the land to its sister company, Ivory Crest Realty and Development Corporation (Ivory Crest).5 Respondent Antonio Gonzales is the President of both corporations.
Sometime in June 1990, Ivory Crest applied for permits and licenses to construct and sell condominium units on the land with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The HLURB issued the certificate of registration and the license to sell on June 23, 1991. Among the buyers of the condominium units were respondents Bormacheco, Inc., Nazario F. Santos, Teresita Chua Tek, Charito Ong Lee, and Ernesto Sibal (collectively referred to as respondent buyers).
When Pridisons defaulted in paying its loan obligations, PBComm extra judicially foreclosed the mortgage. The public auction of the land, however, was forestalled by a preliminary injunction issued by the HLURB in conjunction with the action for specific performance with damages instituted by Bormacheco, Inc. against Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest and PBComm.6 Bormacheco, Inc. demanded that Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest transfer in its favor the titles of the condominium units already paid for in full, free from all liens and encumbrances, including the mortgage in favor of PBComm. The other respondent buyers followed suit, each filing an action against Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest and PBComm.7 Answering the complaints, PBComm claimed that the mortgage in its favor was superior to the claims of the respondent buyers, since it was executed long before their purchase of the condominium units. PBComm also assailed the HLURBs jurisdiction over it, contending that it was not engaged in the real estate business as to bring it under the HLURBs jurisdiction.
PBComm elevated the case to the CA by filing a petition for review (under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court) against the OP decision. In the assailed decision dated April 26, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the ruling of the tribunals below.
PBComm alleges that the CA erred in upholding the HLURBs jurisdiction and nullifying the mortgage executed in its favor.
Section 4. Registration of Projects. The registered owner of a parcel of land who wishes to convert the same into a subdivision project shall submit his subdivision plan to the Authority which shall act upon and approve the same, upon a finding that the plan complies with the Subdivision Standards' and Regulations enforceable at the time the plan is submitted. The same procedure shall be followed in the case of a plan for a condominium project x x x.
In fact, in a letter dated November 27, 1990, the HLURB notified Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest of its deficiency in the requirements submitted, particularly, the affidavit of undertaking by PBComm as compliance with the requirement of Section 4 of PD No. 957. Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest, however, failed to submit or request one from PBComm. Notwithstanding Pridisons and/or Ivory Crests failure, the HLURB granted the registration and issued a license in June 1991. PBComm asserts that its rights as a mortgagee cannot be prejudiced by the HLURBs error. It also claims that its rights are superior to those of the respondent buyers, as its mortgage was even annotated on the master deed and the 12 condominium certificates of title.
PBComm additionally alleges that it was erroneous to apply Section 18 of PD No. 957 on the basis of the finding that "the mortgagee is aware of the proposed conversion of the property";18 it claims that the finding is unsupported by the evidence on record.
The respondent buyers, on the other hand, consider PBComms petition unmeritorious. They claim that all factual and legal issues raised in the petition have been authoritatively considered and passed upon. The CA and the lower tribunals were consistent in upholding the rights of the buyers, as the policy behind PD No. 957 is to protect innocent buyers from scheming subdivision developers. They thus pray for the affirmance of the rulings below and the denial of the petition.
While paragraphs (b) and (c) limit the HLURB cases to those between the buyer and the subdivision or condominium owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman, paragraph (a) is broad enough to include third parties to the sales contract. It appears that the complaints filed before the HLURB were precisely for the unsound real estate business practices of Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest, which not only failed to secure and submit an affidavit of undertaking by PBComm, but also sold the same condominium units to more than one buyer. PBComm was impleaded on the basis of the allegation that the mortgage failed to meet the requirements of PD No. 957.
The Court thus upholds the HLURBs jurisdiction over the action to annul the mortgage constituted in favor of PBComm.
Like the HLURB, the OP and the CA, however, the Court believes that the surrounding circumstances show that PBComm was aware of the proposed conversion of the land into a condominium project, thus, meriting the application of Section 18 of PD No. 957 to the case.
PBComm has not categorically denied prior knowledge of the condominium project and relies mainly on the fact that the mortgage was executed seven months before Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest applied for the registration and license to sell condominium units with the HLURB.21 The prior execution of the mortgage alone, however, does not discount the possibility that PBComm may have had "foreknowledge and possible complicity"22 in the development plans of the condominium project; the factual findings of HLURB, as affirmed by both the OP and the CA, indicate that this was indeed the case. As the HLURB declared, the standard industry practice for banks is to require loan applicants to disclose the nature and purpose of the loan, and present supporting documents such as project feasibility studies in support thereof. With more reasons, we feel that the disclosure of loan purpose and presentation of loan documents is expected in this case, considering that the applicant for loan was a realty company. x x x banks are familiar with the nature of realty companies, and are expected to anticipate them to apply for and use bank loans for developmental purposes. x x x.
Additionally, there was a finding of "several annotations and renewal notes concerning the loans PBComm extended to Pridisons, during the period when the project was under development, suggesting the existence of progressive releases for project development."24 It is also unlikely to have the master deed and 12 condominium certificates of title issued without PBComm releasing the certificate of title over the land, which it held on account of the mortgage. From these, the Court can reasonably conclude that PBComm had actual, not only constructive, knowledge of the condominium project. The earlier execution of the mortgage was more likely made in order to skirt the requirements of Section 18 of PD No. 957. On account of the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of the law,25 the Court affirms the nullification of the mortgage constituted in favor of PBComm and upholds the rights and interests of the respondent buyers over the condominium units, as settled by the courts below.
Also, as the CA declared, the mortgage although voided still stands as evidence of a contract of indebtedness which PBComm may demand Also, as the CA declared, the mortgage - although voided - still stands as evidence of a contract of indebtedness which PBComm may demand payment for from Pridisons, subject to claims and defenses they have against each other that have not been settled in this Decision.
WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM the decision dated April 26, 200228 and the resolution dated September 5, 200229 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62576. Costs against the petitioner.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Eliczer R. de los Santos, and concurred in by Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now a retired member of this Court) and Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon; rolla, pp. 42-57.
4 The mortgage was annotated on the title as Entry No. PE-5620; id. at 43.
5 The transfer of rights occurred on March 18, 1990; id. at 137.
6 Docketed as OAALA No. REM-013092-5035 (HLRB Case No. REM-A-1284); id. at 135.
7 Respondent Tek instituted OAALA No. REM-101091-4943 (HLRB Case No. REM-A-1303); respondent Ong Lee instituted OAALA No. REM-10191-4944 (HLRB Case No. REM-A-1304); respondent Sibal instituted OAALA No. REM-021492-5053; and respondent Santos intervened in the Bormacheco, Inc. case; id. at 135-136.
8 Decision dated August 10, 1994 which affirmed, among others, the HLURB Arbiters decision (HLRB Case No. REM-013092-5035) dated October 8, 1992; id. at 135-175.
10 Decision dated December 14, 2000; id. at 110-134.
13 Referring to the National Housing Authority, the predecessor of the HLURB.
15 Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision under Presidential Decree No. 957, April 2, 1978.
19 See Union Bank of the Philippines v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 95364, June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA 558, 564; Manila Banking Corporation v. Rabina, G.R. No. 145941, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 16, 23; and Government Service Insurance System v. Board of Commissioners (Second Division), HLURB, G.R. No. 180062, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 249, 257.
25 See Home Bankers Savings & Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals, 496 Phil. 637, 651-652 (2005); and Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez, 465 Phil. 276, 287 (2004).
26 Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President, 252 Phil. 5 (1996).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.