Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    JULITA GO ONG V CA

    Uploaded by

    Chari
    Julita Go Ong mortgaged a parcel of land that she jointly owned with her late husband to Allied Banking Corp. to secure a loan. When she failed to pay back the loan, the bank sought to foreclose on the property. Julita argued the mortgage was void under the Rules of Court which require judicial approval for an administrator to encumber estate property. The Supreme Court ruled the mortgage was valid with respect to Julita's conjugal share of the property, as her rights as surviving spouse gave her authority to dispose of her share without court approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    JULITA GO ONG V CA

    Uploaded by

    Chari
    71 views2 pages
    Julita Go Ong mortgaged a parcel of land that she jointly owned with her late husband to Allied Banking Corp. to secure a loan. When she failed to pay back the loan, the bank sought to foreclose on the property. Julita argued the mortgage was void under the Rules of Court which require judicial approval for an administrator to encumber estate property. The Supreme Court ruled the mortgage was valid with respect to Julita's conjugal share of the property, as her rights as surviving spouse gave her authority to dispose of her share without court approval.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    7. JULITA GO ONG v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Julita Go Ong mortgaged a parcel of land that she jointly owned with her late husband to Allied Banking Corp. to secure a loan. When she failed to pay back the loan, the bank sought to foreclose on the property. Julita argued the mortgage was void under the Rules of Court which require judicial approval for an administrator to encumber estate property. The Supreme Court ruled the mortgage was valid with respect to Julita's conjugal share of the property, as her rights as surviving spouse gave her authority to dispose of her share without court approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    JULITA GO ONG V CA

    Uploaded by

    Chari
    Julita Go Ong mortgaged a parcel of land that she jointly owned with her late husband to Allied Banking Corp. to secure a loan. When she failed to pay back the loan, the bank sought to foreclose on the property. Julita argued the mortgage was void under the Rules of Court which require judicial approval for an administrator to encumber estate property. The Supreme Court ruled the mortgage was valid with respect to Julita's conjugal share of the property, as her rights as surviving spouse gave her authority to dispose of her share without court approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JULITA GO ONG v. CA, Allied Banking Corp.

    and the City Sheriff of Quezon City

    FACTS:

    Two parcels of land, Lot No. 12 and Lot No. 1 were in the name of “Alfredo Ong married to Julita Go
    Ong”. When Alfredo died, Julita was appointed administratrix of her husband’s estate. Thereafter, Julita
    sold Lot No. 12 to Lim Che Boon and later on mortgaged Lot No. 1 to Allied banking Corp. to secure a
    loan of P900,000.

    When the loan was due, Allied Banking Corp. tried to collect from Julita. Hence, the complaint alleging
    nullity of the contract for lack of judicial approval which the bank had allegedly promised to secure from
    the court. In response thereto, the bank averred that it was Julita who promised to secure the court’s
    approval.

    The trial court ruled that:

    Absent of any evidence that the property in question is the capital of the deceased husband brought
    into marriage, said property should be presumed as acquired during the marriage and, therefore,
    conjugal property.

    After the dissolution of the marriage with the death of Alfredo, Julita acquired, by law, her conjugal
    share, together with the hereditary rights thereon. Consequently, the mortgage, upon express authority
    of Julita notwithstanding the lack of judicial approval, is valid, with respect to her conjugal share
    thereon.

    The CA affirmed the appealed decision.

    Petitioner, asserting that the mortgage is void for want of judicial approval, quoted Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the
    Rules of Court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the mortgage constituted over the parcel of land under petitioner’s administration is null for
    want of judicial approval.

    RULING:

    While Julita’s assertion may have merit insofar as the rest of Alfredo’s estate is concerned, the same is
    not true as regards her conjugal share and her hereditary rights in the estate. The records show that
    Julita willingly and voluntarily mortgaged the property; and that at the time she executed the mortgage,
    there was no court order authorizing the mortgage, so she took it upon herself to secure an order.

    Thus, in confirming the findings of the lower court, as supported by law, the CA aptly ruled that Sec. 7,
    Rule 89 of the Rules of Court is not applicable, since the mortgage was constituted in Julita’s personal
    capacity and not in her capacity as administratrix of Alfredo’s estate.

    The reference to judicial approval in Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court cannot adversely affect the
    substantive rights of Julita to dispose of her Ideal share, for the conjugal partnership ended with her
    husband's death, and her hereditary rights accrued from the moment of the death of the decedent (Art.
    777, Civil Code).
    Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court applies in a case where judicial approval has to be sought by an
    executor or administrator of the estate before being granted to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber
    estate.

    PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision of the Court of
    Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

    You might also like