Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    DBP-v-BAUTISTA

    Uploaded by

    Angie Japitan
    Bautista applied for a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now DBP), using a parcel of land as security. When she failed to repay the loan, the RFC foreclosed on the mortgage. However, a court later declared the title for the land null and void in a case where Bautista was not a party. The DBP then tried to recover the unpaid loan amount from Bautista. The lower court dismissed, finding that Bautista's due process rights were violated since she was not involved in the title case. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that Bautista could not be bound by a decision where she was not a party and that the DBP could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DBP-v-BAUTISTA

    Uploaded by

    Angie Japitan
    24 views1 page
    Bautista applied for a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now DBP), using a parcel of land as security. When she failed to repay the loan, the RFC foreclosed on the mortgage. However, a court later declared the title for the land null and void in a case where Bautista was not a party. The DBP then tried to recover the unpaid loan amount from Bautista. The lower court dismissed, finding that Bautista's due process rights were violated since she was not involved in the title case. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that Bautista could not be bound by a decision where she was not a party and that the DBP could not

    Original Title

    4. DBP-v-BAUTISTA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Bautista applied for a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now DBP), using a parcel of land as security. When she failed to repay the loan, the RFC foreclosed on the mortgage. However, a court later declared the title for the land null and void in a case where Bautista was not a party. The DBP then tried to recover the unpaid loan amount from Bautista. The lower court dismissed, finding that Bautista's due process rights were violated since she was not involved in the title case. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that Bautista could not be bound by a decision where she was not a party and that the DBP could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    DBP-v-BAUTISTA

    Uploaded by

    Angie Japitan
    Bautista applied for a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now DBP), using a parcel of land as security. When she failed to repay the loan, the RFC foreclosed on the mortgage. However, a court later declared the title for the land null and void in a case where Bautista was not a party. The DBP then tried to recover the unpaid loan amount from Bautista. The lower court dismissed, finding that Bautista's due process rights were violated since she was not involved in the title case. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that Bautista could not be bound by a decision where she was not a party and that the DBP could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Development Bank of the Philippines vs Bautista

    On July 16, 1949, Bautista applied for a loan with the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now DBP) with a parcel of land
    as a form of security. Bautista submitted her certificate of title, tax declaration and the blueprint of the land. RFC
    approved a loan of 4,000.00 in favor of Bautista. When she failed to pay, RFC acted and took steps to foreclose the
    mortgage extrajudicially. On June 26, 1952, RD replaced the TCT in the name of RFC. However, an action was filed by
    Juan and Rufino Ramos in the CFI of Nueva Ecija against the Republic and RFC (now successors of Bautista) claiming that
    they are the owners of the land and seeking annulment of the TCT. A decision was rendered on June 25, 1995 which
    declared the TCTs were null and void. Now, the DBP (as creditor) filed against Bautista for the recovery of money for
    unpaid indebtedness.

    Lower court: DISMISSED. According to the LC, the due process requirement was disregarded since Bautista was not
    made as a party when her title was set aside. Therefor, the judgment could not be binding upon her and be the source
    of the claim from the bank.

    ISSUES:

    (1) WON Bautista can be bound from the decision despite her not being a party of the case (the collateral was not
    hers and she must pay the remaining balance).
    (2) WON DBP can recover the sum of money from the Assurance Fund if Bautista cannot be compelled to pay her
    remaining due.

    Ruling:

    (1) NO. The annulment of Bautista’s title was a proceeding ex-parte (in personam) as far as she was concerned. It
    cannot be considered binding upon her. Her mortgage was foreclosed and the bank realized on it, when the
    bank afterwards acquiesced in the annulment if the title and took it upon itself to reimburse Conrada. It acted
    on its own and it could not bind Bautista. The fundamental due process have been disregarded and Bautista
    should not suffer from the effects of the decision. When the bank acquired title through the extrajudicial
    foreclosure, her obligation had been satisfied. The cardinal requirement that no party should be made to duffer
    without being heard should be upheld.

    On Macabingkil vs Yatco
    - CA found petitioners to be the co-owners of a building which was in question. Being interested parties, they
    should have participated with the ejectment proceedings to give them the equal opportunities to protect their
    rights. Since they weren’t able to participate, then they are not bound and cant be affected by the judgment
    against their co-owner. These cases deal with execution and they should not be enforced against them because
    they weren’t given the chance to be heard in court.

    (2) The case before the lower court, the DL and National Treasurer of the Philippines were made defendants by the
    bank because it believed that if they did not have any right against Bautista, then recovery could be taken from
    the Assurance Fund. Their belief cannot be supported the applicable law which allows recovery ONLY when
    shown that there has been NO NEGLIGENCE on the party sustaining loss or being deprived of any land or
    interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant is SOLELY
    RESPONSIBLE.

    You might also like