Sps. Fortaleza v. Lapitan

SPOUSES CHARLIE FORTALEZA and OFELIA FORTALEZA v.
SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN and RONA LAPITAN

15 August 2012 | Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
Sps. Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza obtained a loan from Sps. Rolando and Amparo Lapitan in the amount of P1.2M subject
to 34% interest per annum. As security, Sps. Fortaleza executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their residential
house & lot in Barrio Anos, Los Baos, Laguna. When Sps. Fortaleza failed to pay their indebtedness including interests
and penalties, the creditors Lapitan applied for extrajudicial foreclosure of the Real Estate Mortgage before the Office of
the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Calamba City.
At the auction sale, the creditors son Dr. Raul Lapitan and his wife Rona emerged as the highest bidders at the amount of
P2.5M. They were then issued a Certificate of Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds of Calamba City and annotated
at the back of the TCT. The one-year redemption period expired without the spouses Fortaleza redeeming the mortgage.
Spouses Raul and Rona Lapitan executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and caused the cancellation of the
TCT held by Sps. Fortaleza and the registration of the subject property in their names under a new TCT. Despite the
foregoing, Sps. Fortaleza refused the Sps. Lapitans formal demand to vacate and surrender possession of the property.
Sps. Lapitan filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of writ of possession with RTC, Br35 of Calamva City, alleging that
as new registered owners of the subject property, they were entitled to its possession. Sps. Fortaleza questioned the
validity of the real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale. They argued that the mortgage was void because the
creditors bloated the principal amount by the imposition of exorbitant interest.
RTC: Ordered issuance of a writ of possession ministerial duty of the court since the redemption period had expired &
a new title had already been issued in the name of Sps. Lapitan
Sps. Fortalezas MR: Subject property is their family home and is exempt from foreclosure sale. MR denied.
CA: Dismissed the appeal and affirmed RTC Ruling.
ISSUE: W/N the subject property is a family home exempt from forced sale.
RULING: No. As a rule, the family home is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment. However, Article 155(3) of
the Family Code explicitly allows the forced sale of a family home for debts secured by mortgages on the premises
before or after such constitution. In this case, there is no doubt that spouses Fortaleza voluntarily executed on
January 28, 1998 a deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the subject property which was even notarized by their
original counsel of record. And assuming that the property is exempt from forced sale, spouses Fortaleza did not
set up and prove to the Sheriff such exemption from forced sale before it was sold at the public auction. As
elucidated in Honrado v. Court of Appeals:
While it is true that the family home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family
residence and is exempt from execution or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code, such claim for
exemption should be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to
do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption.
Certainly, reasonable time for purposes of the law on exemption does not mean a time after the expiration of the one-year
period for a judgment debtor to redeem the property.
The spouses Fortaleza neither filed an action nor made a formal offer to redeem the subject property accompanied by an
actual and simultaneous tender of payment. It is also undisputed that they allowed the one-year period to lapse from the
registration of the certificate of sale without redeeming the mortgage. For all intents and purposes, spouses Fortaleza
have waived or abandoned their right of redemption. Although the rule on redemption is liberally interpreted in favor of
the original owner of the property, we cannot apply the privilege of liberality to accommodate the Sps. Fortaleza due to
their negligence or omission to exercise the right of redemption within the prescribed period without justifiable cause.

Sps. Fortaleza v. Lapitan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Fortaleza v. Lapitan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Fortaleza v. Lapitan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOUSES CHARLIE FORTALEZA and OFELIA FORTALEZA v.

SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN and RONA LAPITAN

You might also like