THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 174711 : September 17, 2008]
SALLY SUENO, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
WHEREFORE, petition being sufficient in form and substance, and the testimonial and documentary evidence well-founded, the same is hereby GRANTED.Unyielding, Sueno filed an appeal of the adverse RTC Decision before the Court of Appeals,12 where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79566.
Let a Writ of Possession be issued authorizing [LBP] to take physical possession of the properties covered by Transfer Certificate[s] of Title Nos. 411101 and 411102 of the Registry of Deeds for Marikina City registered in the name of [LBP] by virtue of the consolidation of ownership dated June 6, 2001.11
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated January 24, 2003 of the RTC of Markina City, Branch 192 is hereby AFFIRMED.13In its Resolution dated 20 September 2006, the appellate court denied Sueno's Motion for Reconsideration.
Sueno argues that there was a novation of the original obligation of LBP allowing her to redeem the subject properties within a period of one year, when LBP consented to the extension of said period of redemption. Sueno insists that the acceptance of LBP of her check payment for the partial sum of P50,000.00, and its encashment of said check signifies its acquiescence to her request for an extension of the period of redemption for the subject properties.I.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VALID NOVATION ENTERED BY PARTIES FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD.II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO LBP IS VALID.
ART. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitute the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or modifies the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. In order for novation to take place, the concurrence of the following requisites are indispensable:
The elements of novation clearly do not exist in the instant case. While it is true that there is a previous valid obligation (i.e., the obligation of LBP to honor Sueno's right to redeem the subject property within a period of one year), such obligation expired at the same time as the redemption period on 6 March 2001. There is, however, no clear agreement between the parties to a new contract, again imposing upon LBP the obligation of honoring Sueno's right to redeem the subject properties within an extended period of six months. Without a new contract, the old contract cannot be considered extinguished.
- There must be a previous valid obligation;
- There must be an agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract;
- There must be the extinguishment of the old contract; and
- There must be the validity of the new contract.14
The parties are bound to fulfill the stipulations in a contract only upon its perfection. At anytime prior to the perfection of a contract, unaccepted offers and proposals remain as such and cannot be considered binding commitments, hence, not demandable. Since [Sueno] failed to perform what was incumbent upon her then, [LBP] cannot be faulted in not granting the extension sought. x x x.15What further belies Sueno's assertion that LBP consented to her request for extension is its letter dated 7 March 2006, again duly received by Sueno, categorically denying her request to lengthen the redemption period. The language and intent of the letter is too clear and simple to be misinterpreted, to wit:
We wish to inform you that the management denied your request to extend the redemption period of your foreclosed property for six (6) months since you failed to comply with the Bank's requirement, upfront payment of P115,000.00.Irrefragably, there is no mutual agreement to extend the original period for the redemption of the subject properties. There is no common intent by the parties to novate the old obligation by extending the period thereof.
Hence, the Bank is now consolidating the transfer of its ownership in the name of Land Bank. Enclosed is the P50,000.00 Manager's Check re: your upfront payment refunded to you.16 (Emphasis supplied).
Novation is never presumed, and the animus novandi, whether totally or partially, must appear by express agreement of the parties, or by their acts that are too clear and unmistakable. The extinguishment of the old obligation by the new one is a necessary element of novation, which may be effected either expressly or impliedly. The term "expressly" means that the contracting parties incontrovertibly disclose that their object in executing the new contract is to extinguish the old one. Upon the other hand, no specific form is required for an implied novation, and all that is prescribed by law would be an incompatibility between the two contracts. While there is really no hard and fast rule to determine what might constitute to be a sufficient change that can bring about novation, the touchstone for contrariety, however, would be an irreconcilable incompatibility between the old and the new obligations. (Emphasis supplied.)Given the lapse of the period for Sueno to redeem the subject properties, then the Court cannot enjoin LBP from taking physical possession of the said properties after the titles thereto were duly consolidated in its name. The right of LBP to physical possession of the subject properties is explicitly authorized by Section 33, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides:
SECTION 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given. - If no redemption be made within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; x x x.Corollarily, Section 7 of Act 3135,18 as amended by Act 4118, reads:
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor.
Section 7. Possession during redemption period. -In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the [Regional Trial Court] of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.Under the above-quoted provisions, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered by a Torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of possession.19
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp. 21-28.
2 Records, pp. 173-175.
3Rollo, p. 36.
4 Id. at 68-105.
5 Id. at 112-113.
6 Id. at 134-135.
7 Id. at 140.
8 Id. at 141.
9 Id. at 1-4.
10 Id. at 51-55.
11 Records, p. 175.
12 CA rollo, pp. 25-34.
13Rollo, p. 27.
14Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, 368 Phil. 863, 871 (1999).
15Rollo, p. 26.
16 Records, p. 142.
17 G.R. No. 145441, 26 April 2005, 457 SCRA 203, 218.
18 "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages."
19Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 287, 299.
20 Id.
21F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No. 78714, 21 November 1990, 191 SCRA 516, 523.