7/26/2019 Civ Pro Assigned Cases

1/4

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK vs. ROSEMOOR MINING

FACTS: Petitioner Overseas Bank fled a Petition or Review on Certiorari under

Rule 45 seeking the reversal and the setting aside o the Decision o the Court o

Appeals declaring as null and void the Real Estate ortgage e!ecuted "# Rose$oorining in avor o Overseas Bank%Rose$oor ining o"tained a loan ro$ Overseas Bank in order to raise the

necessar# unds or the i$portation o $achineries needed or its operations% &he

loan was secured "# two Real Estate ortgage Contracts over si! parcels o land

situated at 'an iguel( Bulacan( and registered under the na$e o Rose$oor

ining( and another two parcels o land situated at )apan( *ueva Eci+a( registered

under Pascual,s na$e% Rose$oor ining e!ecuted our irrevoca"le -etters o Credit

"ut su"se.uentl# deaulted in the pa#$ent pro$pting Overseas Bank to cause the

e!tra+udicial oreclosure o the $ortgaged properties and the sale thereo "# pu"lic

auction wherein the Overseas Bank was the highest "idder% Rose$oor ining

instituted two separate co$plaints against the "ank( one fled "eore the R&C oanila and the other one "eore the R&C o Bulacan% /n its Petition or Certiorari(

Overseas Bank( raised the ssues o oru$ shopping and propriet# o the deault

order as well as theissue o the venue "eore the R&C o Bulacan% Overseas Bank

argued that the venue o the action or nullifcation o the oreclosure sales o the

$ortgaged properties which were located in Bulacan and *ueva Eci+a( were

i$properl# lodged "eore the Bulacan R&C% CA dis$issed the case or lack o $erit(

declared that no oru$0shopping e!isted and upheld the validit# o the deault order

against Overseas Bank and the propriet# o venue%Rose$oor ining is not guilt# o oru$ shopping since the court ratiocinated that

there was no identit# o parties involved and the rights asserted in "oth actionswere di1erent ro$ each other% On the issue o i$proper venue( this Court ruled that

the action to nulli# the oreclosure sales o the *ueva Eci+a properties( along with

the Bulacan properties were properl# instituted "eore the Bulacan R&C% 2urther( the

$otion or reconsideration could not have tolled the running o the period to answer

or two reasons% One( it was fled late( nine da#s ater the due date o the answer%

&wo( it was a $ere rehash o the $otion to dis$iss3 hence(pro forma in nature%

&hus( the alolos R&C did not err in declaring the Bank in deault%

ISSUES:% hether or not CA co$$itted serious error o law when it a6r$ed the

R&C Bulacan decision reusing to dis$iss the petition outright on the ground o

oru$ shopping and o declaring petitioner in deault and depriving it o dueprocess%7% hether or not CA e!ceeded +urisdiction when it granted a relie not included in

the co$plaint%

HELD:% *o( Rose$oor ining is not guilt# o oru$ shopping "# fling "oth the

Bulacan and the anila cases% Our +urisprudential pronounce$ents are conclusive

upon this Court in the instant petition and could no longer "e overturned without

REBECCA N. MORADA LLB 4

7/26/2019 Civ Pro Assigned Cases

2/4

transgressing the ele$entar# principle o the law of the case% /n the case at "ar(

Overseas Bank( thereore( is now "arred ro$ once again raising "eore this Court

the issues on oru$ shopping( the deault order and ater the intricacies involved

therein were alread# ad+udicated and resolved ull# and with fnalit#%2urther( when Overseas Bank deli"eratel# opted to fle a otion or Reconsideration

o the order o the Bulacan R&C den#ing its otion to Dis$iss( instead o fling anAnswer( it assu$ed the risk o losing its standing in court and it cannot si$pl#

e!cuse itsel ro$ the adverse conse.uence o its chosen procedural course%

Overseas Bank cannot eign that it was denied its da# in court when it was

precluded ro$ presenting its evidence during the hearing "# the deault "ecause

Overseas Bank( in several instances( was a"le to raise "eore the Court the issue o

the validit# o the interlocutor# orders issued "# the courts a quo and( likewise( on

various occasions( $oved or the dis$issal o "oth the Bulacan and anila cases(

instead o proving the $erits o its cases "eore the lower courts% Overseas Bank(

thereore( cannot pound on due process and su"stantial +ustice( when it is evident in

the records that it had( countless ti$es( used( i not a"used( such procedural due

process or its end and there"# prolonged the disposition o the cases involved%

7% *o( while it is true that Rose$oor ining did not specifcall# ask or the

annul$ent o the Real Estate ortgages( upon scrutin# o its Co$plaint however( it

is apparent that the allegations propounded "# Rose$oor ining go into the ver#

validit# o the $ortgage contracts% &he allegation that Overseas Bank co$$itted

raudulent acts in the constitution o the Real Estate ortgages was actuall# an

attack on the $ortgage contracts( and not +ust on the oreclosures o these

$ortgages% &he nullit# o the oreclosures( thereore( was $erel# a necessar#

conse.uence o the invalidit# o the $ortgages% &hus( to void the oreclosure sales

and not the $ortgage contracts would onl# result in a"surdit# when it is palpa"lero$ the "od# o the Co$plaint that Rose$oor ining,s challenge o the oreclosure

sales was rooted in the deective $ortgage contracts% / at all( Rose$oor ining,s

ailure to particularl# pra# or the nullifcation o the Real Estate ortgages was

$erel# an oversight on its part that is dee$ed cured when it asked ro$ the court a

quoor such other relies and re$edies as $a# "e dee$ed +ust and e.uita"le in the

pre$ises% &he general pra#er o Rose$oor ining( couched in the phrase( 8such

other relies and re$edies as $a# "e dee$ed +ust and e.uita"le in the pre$ises(8

should "e interpreted to include the pra#er or the nullifcation o the $ortgage

contracts since this is alread# evident ro$ the allegations contained in the "od# o

its Co$plaint though it was not specifcall# pleaded in the pra#er% &he general

pra#er is "road enough 8to +usti# e!tension o a re$ed# di1erent ro$ or together

with the specifc re$ed# sought%8 Even without the pra#er or a specifc re$ed#(

proper relie $a# "e granted "# the court i the acts alleged in the co$plaint and

the evidence introduced so warrant% &he pra#er in the co$plaint or other relies

e.uita"le and +ust in the pre$ises +ustifes the grant o a relie not otherwise

specifcall# pra#ed or%

REBECCA N. MORADA LLB 4

7/26/2019 Civ Pro Assigned Cases

3/4

HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v% HONESTO DE CASTRO

FACTS: &his is a petition or review on certiorari asserting that the decision

ordering the issuance o a decree o registration( while pro$ulgated su"se.uent tothe issuance o the certifcate o title in the na$es o the second applicants( should"e 8e!ecuted8 and that the certifcate o title issued to the latter should "e nullifed%

&here are two applications or registration o the sa$e parcel o land that were fledtwelve #ears apart in di1erent "ranches o the sa$e R&C( "ut a certifcate o titlewas issued in one case while the other is still pending appeal% &he frst action wasinstituted in R&C0Cavite in 95: "# Pedro -ope;( et al while the second action wasfled "eore R&C0Cavite in &aga#ta# Cit# so$eti$e in 9:< "# =onest de Castro( etal% &he unicipalit# o 'ilang( Cavite opposed the frst case since it alleges that aportion o the land sought to "e registered had "een leased to private persons andwas the or$er,s patri$onial propert#( to which the applicants answered that the

whole o the land passed to the$ "# inheritance% &he court denied the$unicipalit#>s petition or a dis$issal o the application or registration stating thateven i the land was the propert# o the unicipalit# o 'ilang( "# virtue o itsincorporation into the cit# o &aga#ta#( it "eca$e propert# o the latter% &hus( the$unicipalit# o 'ilang has no personalit# to appear in the proceedings% Ater dueinvestigation regarding the application( the court approved the application in 9

7/26/2019 Civ Pro Assigned Cases

4/4

petitioners> application or registration( according to RA @