2 - Martelino v. NHMFC
2 - Martelino v. NHMFC
o0o
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
** The other twenty-three (23) petitioners before the Court of Appeals did
not join this petition.
664
665
666
667
668
QUISUMBING,J.:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 39-47. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with
Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz and Hakim S. Abdulwahid
concurring.
2 Records, pp. 405-412. Penned by Judge Victorino S. Alvaro.
3 Rollo, pp. 49-51.
4 Records, pp. 8-20.
5 In this petition, Sheriff Alberto A. Castillo is not impleaded.
669
_______________
6 Records, p. 23.
7 Id., at p. 25.
8 Id., at pp. 74-76.
9 Id., at pp. 117-118.
10 Id., at pp. 132-135.
11 Id., at p. 144.
670
_______________
12 Id., at p. 145.
13 Id., at pp. 147-150.
14 Id., at pp. 158-169.
15 One of the original petitioners/plaintiffs who did not join this
petition.
16 Records, pp. 265-273.
671
The RTC held that the July 9, 1998 Order was not
applicable to the HDMF since it was not notified of the
preliminary injunction hearing. Thus, no basis existed to
declare Atty. Delos Santos in contempt of court.
In dismissing the case, the RTC ruled that the issue of
non-completion of the subdivision should have been
brought before the HLURB. It also ruled that no judicial
declaration can be made because the petition was vague.
The RTC assumed that the subject of the petition was
Republic Act No. 850118 or the Housing Loan Condonation
Act of 1998 which was cited by petitioners. But the RTC
pointed out that petitioners failed to state which section of
the law affected their rights and needed judicial
declaration. The RTC also noted that, as stated by
petitioners, respondents still foreclosed their mortgages, a
breach of said law which rendered the petition for
declaratory relief improper. The proper remedy was an
ordinary civil action, the RTC concluded.
_______________
17 Id., at p. 412.
18 AN ACT TO RESCUE THE NATIONAL SHELTER PROGRAM OF THE
672
I.
IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE
TRIAL COURT BASED ON A GROUND NOT ALLEGED
IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS;
II.
IN APPLYING THE RULING IN U. BAEZ ELECTRIC
LIGHT CO. vs. ABRA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE[,] INC.,
(119 SCRA 90) TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL BY THE TRIAL COURT;
III.
IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE
DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
WHEN THE TRIAL
_______________
19 SEC.5.
Preliminary injunction not granted without notice;
exception.No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing
and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined.
xxxx
673
_______________
674
_______________
675
_______________
676
We agree with the RTC but hasten to point out that the
RTC had not ruled on whether the petition was also
improper as a petition for prohibition. Indeed, under
Section 1,27 Rule 63, a person must file a petition for
declaratory relief before breach or violation of a deed, will,
contract, other written instrument, statute, executive
order, regulation, ordinance or any other governmental
regulation. In this case, the petitioners had stated in their
petition that respondents assessed them interest and
penalties on their outstanding loans, initiated foreclosure
proceedings against petitioner Rafael Martelino as
evidenced by the notice of extrajudicial sale28 and
threatened to foreclose the mortgages of the other
petitioners, all in disregard of their right to suspend
payment to Shelter for its failure to complete the
subdivision. Said statements clearly mean one thing:
petitioners had already suspended paying their
amortization payments. Unfortunately, their actual
suspension of payments defeated the purpose of the action
to secure an authoritative declaration of their supposed
right to suspend payment, for their guidance. Thus, the
RTC could no longer assume jurisdiction over the action for
declaratory relief because its subject initially unspecified,
now identified as P.D. No. 957 and relied uponcorrectly or
otherwiseby petitioners, and assumed by the RTC to be
Rep. Act No. 8501, was breached before filing the action. As
we said in Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat:29
_______________
27 SECTION1.
Who may file petition.Any person interested
under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights
are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any
other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to
determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphasis supplied.)
27x x x x
28 Records, p. 40.
29 G.R. No. 144101, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 92.
677
_______________
30 Id., at p. 96.
31 Records, pp. 381-391.
32 Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara, G.R. No. 143188, February 14,
2007, 515 SCRA 627, 634.
33 198 Phil. 1, 37; 112 SCRA 294 (1982).
678
_______________
679
_______________
680
_______________
681
VOL. 556, JUNE 30, 2008 681
Martelino vs. National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation
_______________
47 Ilano v. Espaol, G.R. No. 161756, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA
365, 373.
48 Records, p. 144.
682
_______________
49 Rollo, p. 110.
50 Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation v. Demetria, G.R. No.
166719, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 160, 168.
51 Records, pp. 200-223.
52 EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957, done on
April 2, 1978.
683
_______________
53 Delos Santos v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 154877, March 27, 2007, 519
SCRA 62, 73.
54 Supra note 28.
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.