Scribd
Upload
70 views2 pages

Metropolitan Bank, & Trust Company vs. Hon. Floro T. Alejo, Presiding Judge of Branch 172 RTC Valenzuela Facts

Metropolitan Bank provided loans to the spouses Raul and Cristina Acampado, secured by a mortgage on their property title. Sy Tan Se later filed a case to nullify the spouses' title without including the bank. The spouses then defaulted on their loan and the bank initiated foreclosure, acquiring the property title. However, the bank was then informed of the decision nullifying the original title. The bank filed to annul this decision, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled the bank's petition for annulment was proper, and the original decision nullifying the title was void, as the bank was an indispensable party that was not included.

Uploaded by

AnnMaureenNavarro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views2 pages

Metropolitan Bank, & Trust Company vs. Hon. Floro T. Alejo, Presiding Judge of Branch 172 RTC Valenzuela Facts

Metropolitan Bank provided loans to the spouses Raul and Cristina Acampado, secured by a mortgage on their property title. Sy Tan Se later filed a case to nullify the spouses' title without including the bank. The spouses then defaulted on their loan and the bank initiated foreclosure, acquiring the property title. However, the bank was then informed of the decision nullifying the original title. The bank filed to annul this decision, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled the bank's petition for annulment was proper, and the original decision nullifying the title was void, as the bank was an indispensable party that was not included.

Uploaded by

AnnMaureenNavarro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

METROPOLITAN BANK, & TRUST COMPANY vs. Hon. FLORO T.

ALEJO,
Presiding Judge of Branch 172 RTC Valenzuela;
FACTS:
As security for the payment of the loans obtained from Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company by the spouses Raul and Cristina Acampado, a Real Estate Mortgage
over a parcel of Nullity of land was executed by same spouses. Subsequently a
Complaint for Declaration of the TCT of the spouses was filed by Sy Tan Se in the
RTC of Valenzuela. The bank was not made a party to the said civil case(complaint
for declaration of nullity of TCT.) They werent notified as well. The spouses
defaulted in the payment of their loan and extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings
were initiated. The bank submitted the highest and winning bid. A certificate of sale
was issued in their favor.
When they were about to get their TCT from the Register of Deeds, petitioner
was informed of the existence of the decision in the aforementioned civil case
(complaint for declaration of nullity of TCT) declaring the Spouses Acampadoss TCT
null and void.
The bank filed with the CA a petition for the annulment of the RTC Decision.
The CA dismissed their petition and ruled that the bank should have filed a petition
for relief from judgment or an action for quieting of title.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a petition for annulment of judgment is the proper remedy
available to the bank.
2. Whether or not the judgment of the trial court (declaring the Spouses
Acampados TCT null and void) should be declared null and void
HELD :
1. Yes. Petition for annulment of judgment was the proper remedy available to the
bank. Such bank was deprived of its duly registered property right without due
process of the law by not including the petitioner as defendant to the civil case
by Sy Tan Se even if he was an indispensable party.
2. Yes. The judgment of the trial court should also be declared null and void
because the bank, which is an indispensable party, was not impleaded in the
civil case. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actuations of the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to
the absent parties but even as to those present.

You might also like