People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Poras G.R. No.

177747, February 16, 2010 Overview: RTC Decision (Jan. 12, 2004) Guilty for the crime of Rape. Sentence: Reclusion perpetua CA Decision (Nov. 8, 2006) affirmed.

Amended Information: Charge was for rape November 27, 1994, Quezon City Poras had sexual intercourse with AAA, minor 13 years old when she was deprived of reason or unconsciousness having been made to drink milk with sleeping substance. Arraignment: NOT Guilty plea Prosecution Witnesses: 1. AAA (victim); 2. Dr. Rosaline Cosidon (Dr. Cosidon); 3. BBB Defense Witnesses: 1. Ignacio Poras (accused/defendant). AAAs testimonies: Personal circumstances: a. Lives in Brgy. Pingkian, Pasong Tamo, QC with Poras and CCC, her godmothers daughter; b. 13 years old; On the issues: a. Nov. 27, 1994 Poras offered her coffee w/milk. She fell asleep. When she woke up the following morning, she saw Poras on top of her moving and touching her private parts. Strap of bra had been removed. Panty lowered to her knees. When she pushed the appellant, the latter raised his brief and nwent to his room, threatening to kill her if she would disclose the incident to anyone. She did not call for help because she was weak; b. That she slept at the sala of the house with CCC while Poras slept alone in his room. But that CCC was no longer beside her when she woke up, but was lying outside of the mat where they slept; c. That it was unusual for Poras to prepare coffee for her; d. That she did not disclose the incident to her brother DDD because she was afraid DDD would side with Poras; e. That she instead disclosed it to Jennifer, a friend; f. That Jennifer accompanied her to the formers aunt, BBB, who in turn, reported the same to the Sagandaan Police Station. The police took her testimony and brought her to Camp Crame for medical examination; g. That she had known Poras since she was 6 yrs old and resented him because he was manyakis; h. That when she was younger, Poras would often press his penis against her buttocks when she was younger. AAAs testimony (on cross-examination): a. That she and her siblings had been living with Poras since her mother died on Jan. 31, 1994; b. That Poras first raped her when she was in Grade II. She recalled that CCC was sleeping beside her when Poras asked her to drink coffee on the evening of Nov. 26, 1994. She fell asleep thereafter. She saw Poras lying beside her when she woke up. She also saw blood on the rear end of her panty. She was certain that Poras raped her because he was putting his briefs and shorts when she woke up. c. That CCC was no longer on the mattress where they slept when she (AAA) woke up;

d. That their rented house measures 4 x 6 meters. Its sala is approximately 3 sq. m wide, and a room that measures 2 x 1 sq m. The room has no door, but has a wooden bed inside. The sala and the room are separated by a wooden partition. Dr. Cosidons Testimonies: a. That she conducted a medical examination of AAA on Dec. 4, 1994. See Medico legal report No. M1736-94 which yields the following: Conclusion: Subject is non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of application of any form of violence. Remarks: Vaginal and per-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococcic and for spermatozoa. b. That the lacerations could have been caused by a hard object such as a finger or a fully erect penis. BBBs testimony: a. That Poras was the live-in partner of her sister; b. That on Dec. 2, 1994, AAA told her that Poras raped her; c. That she reported the incident to the police. The defense presented a different version of events. In his brief, he argued that the RTC erred in convicting him of the crime charged despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to Poras, AAA gave different versions of the incident, but never testified that there was any penetration of her private parts. AAA only concluded that she had been raped when she learned of the result of the medical examination and because she felt weak when she woke up.

ISSUES:

RULING:

CIVIL CASE: SPOUSES BENEDICT and MARICEL DY TECKLO, petitioner vs RURAL BANK OF PAMPLONA, INC. represented by its President/Manager, JUAN LAS, respondent. G.R. No. 171201 June 18, 2010 Preliminaries: This case involves a blanket mortgage clause. FACTS:

January 20, 1994: Sps. Roberto and Maria Antonett Co obtained from RBPI 100,000 loan due on April 20, 1994 (3 mos. thereafter). Collateral: Real estate mortgage, a 262-sq. m residential lot owned by the spouses in San Felipe, Naga City covered by TCT No. 24196. January 21, 1994: Such mortgage was registered in the RD of Naga City duly annotated on the TCT of such property as Entry No. 58182. (A stipulation in the contract): The mortgaged property would also answer for the future loans of the mortgagor. March 4, 1994: Sps. Obtained a 2nd loan from RBP in the amount of 150,000 due on June 2, 1994 (3 months). Meanwhile, SPS. Benedict and Maricel Dy Tecklo (herein petitioners) instituted an action against sps. Co. (Civil Case No. 94-3161 in RTC Naga City). In that case, a writ of attachment was issued on the mortgaged property of the spouses and the notice thereof was annotated on the TCT of the mortgaged property as Entry No. 58941. The two loans became due and demandable. RBPI thereby instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. RBPI executed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure dated September 5, 1994 where it sought to satisfy only the first loan although the 2nd has also become due and demandable. December 19, 1994: Public auction was held. RBPI offered the winning bid of Php 142,000.00 which did not include the 2nd loan. A PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF SALE was issued in favor of the bank and was annotated on the TCT of the mortgaged property as Entry No. 60794. Sps. Tecklo exercised Sps. Cos right of redemption as successors-in-interest of the Sps. Co (judgment debtors). August 9, 1995: sps. Tecklo offered Php 155,769.50 as redemption price based on the computation made by the Office of the Provincial Sheriff. RBPI objected on the following grounds: 1. That the 2nd loan was not included in the computation of the redemption payment (If it will be included, the amount due to the bank will increase. But remember that when this property was foreclosed, it was only originally sought to cover the 1st loan and not the 2nd loan); 2. That the applicable interest rate should be the rate fixed in the mortgage which was 24% per annum plus 3% service charge per annum and 18% per annum. Provincial sheriff objected here claiming that it should be 12% per annum. RBPI then sought to annul the redemption of the property by the Sps. Tecklo before RTC Naga City (Civil Case No. RTC 96-3521). RTC RULING: (Partly in favor of the Sps. Tecklo) 1. Second loan was not annotated on the TCT, thus it cannot bind 3rd persons (in favor of Sps. Tecklo); 2. 24% per annum interest rate as fixed in the mortgage. Thus, total price is increased to Php 167,076.57 from Php 155,769.50 (in favor of RBPI); RTC dismissed RBPIs complaint for annulment of redemption. It ordered Sps. Tecklo to pay the deficiency. RBPI appealed. CA RULING: It ruled that the 2nd loan is covered also although it was not annotated on the TCT (in favor of the bank). But it increased the price to be paid by the sps. Tecklo to Php 204,407.18. CA denied MR of sps. Tecklo. Sps. Tecklo brought the issue to the SC.

ISSUE: WON the redemption amount includes the 2nd loan in the amount of Php 150,000.00 even if it was not included in RBPIs application for extrajudicial foreclosure. SC RULING: MERITORIOUS. Sps Tecklos arguments: 1. That the 2nd loan was not annotated as an additional loan on the TCT of the mortgaged property such that it could not bind them; 2. That the 2nd loan was just a private contract between RBPI and Sps. Co which is not binding to 3rd person unless and until they are duly registered; 3. That RBPIs application for EJ Foreclosure referred solely to the 1st loan. RBPIs arguments:

1. That the mortgage secured not only the 1st loan but also future loans Sps. Co might obtain from RBPI and the same was specifically provided in the mortgage contract; 2. That by virtue of the preliminary attachment obtained by Sps Tecklo, as redemptioner, they have assumed all the debts secured by the mortgaged property. SC RULING:
Settled is the rule that mortgages securing future loans are valid and legal contracts. Blanket mortgage clauses are allowed and valid. Secs. 51 and 52 of PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree): It is the act of registration which creates a constructive notice to the whole world and binds third persons. REGISTRATION is the ministerial act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is inscribed in the records of the office of the RD and annotated on the back of the TCT covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or instrument. Not required to go beyond the face of the TCT. He is charged only with notice to whatever encumbrances or burdens annotated at the back of the TCT. On the issue of the inclusion/exclusion of the 2nd loan: Tad-Y vs. PNB: since the mortgage contract containing the blanket mortgage clause was already annotated on the TCT of the mortgaged property, subsequent loans need not be separately annotated on the said TCT in order to bind third parties. Records of the present case show that the mortgage contract, containing the provision that future loans would also be secured by the mortgage, is duly annotated on the TCT of the mortgaged property. This constitutes sufficient notice to the world that the mortgage secures not only the first loan but also future loans the mortgagor may obtain from respondent bank. Thus, second loan need not be separately annotated on the said TCT in order to bind 3rd parties such as Sps. Tecklo.

However, we note the curious fact that RBPIs petition for EJ Foreclosure was solely for the satisfaction of the 1st loan although the 2nd loan had also become due and demandable. In its Appellants brief filed in the CA, RBPI even admitted that the 2nd loan was not included in its bid at the public auction sale. To quote from page 5 of the Appellants Brief filed by RBPI: For failure to pay the 1st loan, the mortgage was foreclosed and the property covered by TCT No. 24196 was sold at public auction on December 19, 1994 for Php 142, 000, which was the bid of the mortgagee bank. The bank did not include in its bid the second loan of Php 150,000. (Emphasis supplied). Thus, for its failure to include the 2nd loan in its application for EJ foreclosure as well as in its bid at the public auction sale, respondent bank is deemed to have waived its lien on the mortgaged property with respect to the second loan. Of course, respondent bank may still collect the unpaid second loan, and the interest thereon, in an ordinary collection suit before the right to collect prescribes.
After the foreclosure of the mortgaged property, the mortgage is extinguished and the purchaser at auction sale acquires the property free from such mortgage.26 Any deficiency amount after foreclosure cannot constitute a continuing lien on the foreclosed property, but must be collected by the mortgagee-creditor in an ordinary action for collection. In this case, the second loan from the same mortgage deed is in the nature of a deficiency amount after foreclosure. In order to effect redemption, the judgment debtor or his successor -in-interest need only pay the purchaser at the public auction sale the redemption amount composed of (1) the price which the purchaser at the public auction sale paid for the property and (2) the amount of any assessment or taxes which the purchaser may have paid on the property after the purchase, plus the applicable interest.27 Respondent banks demand that the second loan be added to the actual amount paid for the property at the public auction sale finds no basis in law or jurisprudence. On the issue of the applicable interest rate: Sec. 78 of General Banking Act governs 24% per annum interest rate specified in the mortgage should apply. Total redemption price: 167,076.78 Less: Tender 155,769.50

Deficiency

P 11,307.18

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 17 May 2005 Decision and the 14 December 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59769. Petitioners Benedict and Maricel Dy Tecklo are ordered to pay respondent Rural Bank of Pamplona, Inc. the deficiency of P11,307.18 on the redemption amount, with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 22 May 1998 until fully paid. Upon receipt of the full amount inclusive of interest, respondent Rural Bank of Pamplona, Inc. is ordered to surrender to petitioners Benedict and Maricel Dy Tecklo the owners duplicate of TCT No. 24196.