3 Rule 68 GSIS vs CFI Iloilo

GSIS vs CFI Iloilo

Facts: GSIS granted to the Spouses Bacaling a real estate loan of P600, 000 for the development of the Bacaling-Moreno subdivision. he spouses e!ecuted a real estate mortgage over four lots o"ned b# them in favor of GSIS as a securit# for their loan. But out of the approved amount, onl# P$%0, 000 "as released to them.

 he Bacalings Bacalings failed to &nish &nish the subdivision subdivision pro'ect pro'ect and pa# the the amorti(ations of the loan so GSIS &led a complaint for 'udicial foreclosure of the mortgage. he court ordered for the pa#ment of the amount released together "ith interests.

Mrs. Bacaling failed to pa# the 'udgment debt "ithin )0 da#s from the receipt of decision. *ence, the mortgaged lots "ere sold at a public auction "here GSIS "as the highest bidder.

In +)6+, GSIS &led a motion for con&rmation of the sale and further ased for a de&cienc# 'udgment. In +)$, Maria eresa Integrated evelopment /orporation MI/1 as alleged assignee of the mortgagor2s 3ight of 3edemption 3edemption &led a motion for the e!ercise of such right "hich "as granted b# the trial court.

MI/ delivered a chec to GSIS as pa#ment of redemption price but it "as dishonored because it "as dra"n against a closed account. In +)4 the court declared the redemption as null and void upon motion of GSIS.

 hereafter,  hereafter, "ritten proposals proposals "ere "ere sent b# said respondent respondent to the GSIS for for the redemption of the foreclosed propert#, but the GSIS re5uired cash pa#ment of the redemption redemption price. In +) Mrs. Bacaling tried to re-open the case but the court denied her motion. It con&rmed the sale and rendered rendered de&cienc# 'udgment in favour of GSIS.

MI/ &led a motion for reconsideration asing for the restoration of the right of redemption. he respondent court modi&ed its earlier order and allo"ed MI/ to redeem the propert#.

Issue:  789 after the 'udicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage and the con&rmation of the sale, the trial court ma# grant or &! another period for the redemption of the foreclosed propert# b# the assignee of the mortgagor2s e5uit# of redemption.

Ruling:

S:/. $. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale. — if upon the trial in such action the court shall &nd the facts set forth in the complaint to be true, it shall ascertain the amount due to the plainti; upon the mortgage debt or obligation, including interest and costs, and shall render 'udgment for the sum so found due and order that the same be paid into court "ithin a period of not less than ninet# )01 da#s from the date of the service of such order, and that in default of such pa#ment the propert# be sold to reali(e the mortgage debt and costs. S:/. 4. Sale of mortgaged property; eect. — 7hen the defendant, after being directed to do so as provided in the last preceding section, fails to pa# the principal, interest, and costs at the time directed in the order, the court shall order the propert# to be sold in the manner and under the regulations that govern sales of real estate under e!ecution. Such sale shall not a;ect the rights of persons holding prior encumbrances upon the propert# or a part thereof, and when conrmed by an order of the court, it shall operate to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the  purchaser, sub'ect to such rights of redemption as ma# be allo"ed b# la".

 here is no right of redemption from a 'udicial foreclosure sale after the con&rmation of the sale, e!cept those granted b# bans or baning institutions under the General Baning