[G.R. No. L-55744.
February 28, 1985]
JOSE V. HERRERA, petitioner
VS.
L.P. LEVISTE & CO., INC., JOSE T. MARCELO, GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN-
INSURANCE SYSTEM, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF RIZAL and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Amador Santiago, Jr. for respondent L.P. Leviste & Co., Inc.
Benjamin Aquino for respondent J.T. Marcelo, Jr
FACTS:
1. Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Petitioner requested the GSIS for the restructuring of the mortgage
obligation because of his own arrearages in the payment of the amortizations. GSIS
replied that as a matter of policy, it could not act on his request unless he first made
proper substitution of property, updated the account, and paid 20% thereof to the
GSIS. There was no requirement by the GSIS for the execution of a final deed of sale
by Leviste in favor of petitioner. Petitioner wrote the GSIS informing the latter of his
right to redeem the foreclosed properties and asking that he be allowed to do so in
installments. However, the GSIS had not favorably acted thereon.
2. Respondent’s/Defendant’s claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The respondents, Leviste & Co. obtained a loan from the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) in the amount of P 1,854,311.5. As security for the
loan, Leviste mortgaged two lots, one in Parañaque Property and Buendia Property.
Leviste sold to Petitioner, the Buendia Property for P 3,750,000 with the following
conditions: (1) pay Leviste P1,895,688.50, (2) assume Leviste's indebtedness of
P1,854,311.50 to the GSIS, and (3) substitute the Parañaque property with his own
within a period of six months. Leviste undertook to arrange for the conformity of the
GSIS to petitioner's assumption of the obligations, Leviste assigned its right to redeem
both foreclosed properties to respondent Jose Marcelo, Jr.
3. Decisions of the Lower Courts (e.g., RTC, CA)
the Trial Court dismissed petitioner's Complaint and ordered all payments
made by petitioner to Leviste forfeited in favor of the latter pursuant to their contract
providing for automatic forfeiture "in the event of failure to comply with any of the
conditions contained therein, particularly the payment of the scheduled amortizations.
4. ISSUE/S (one sentence)
Whether or not Herrera has a better right to the foreclosed properties.
HELD
5. Dispositions of the Lower Courts (one sentence)
The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Reconsideration sought by
petitioner was also denied.
6. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to
the topic under discussion)
Petitioner seeks reconsideration on the grounds that it would result in
patent injustice as he would not only forfeit the Buendia Property to Marcelo, but would
also lose the amount of P1,895,688.50 and P300,000.00, which he paid to Leviste and
the GSIS, respectively; that it would result in the unjust enrichment of Leviste; and that
Leviste as well the GSIS and Marcelo would be benefiting at petitioner's expense.
Considering the grounds of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, the arguments
adduced during the oral argument and in the parties' respective Memoranda, we
resolve to deny reconsideration upon the following considerations.
a) The GSIS has not benefited in any way at the expense of petitioner. What it
received, by way of redemption from respondent Marcelo, was the mortgage
loan it had extended plus interest and sundry charges.
b) Neither has Marcelo benefited at the expense of petitioner. Said respondent had
paid to GSIS the amount P3,232,766.94, which is not far below the sum of P
3,750,000.00, which was the consideration petitioner would have paid to Leviste
had his contract been consummated.
c) Leviste had neither profited at the expense of petitioner, for losing his Buendia
Property, all he had received was P1,854,311.50 from GSIS less amounts he had
paid, plus P 1,895,688.00 paid to him by petitioner, the total of which is
substantially a reasonable value of the Buendia Property.
It is quite true that petitioner had lost the P 1,895,688.00 he had paid to Leviste, plus P
300,000.00 he had paid to GSIS, less the rentals he had received when in possession of
the Buendia Property. That loss is attributable to his fault in (A) Not having been able to
submit collateral to GSIS in substitution of the Paranaque Property, (B) Not paying off
the mortgage debt when GSIS decided to foreclose and (C) Not making an earnest
effort to redeem the property as a possible redemptioner.
