Idolor vs. Court of Appeals
Idolor vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 141853. February 7, 2001.
_________________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
* THIRD DIVISION.
400
Quezon City on June 23, 1997. Petitioner had one year from the
registration of the sheriffs sale to redeem the property but she
failed to exercise her right on or before June 23, 1998, thus
spouses de Guzman are now entitled to a conveyance and
possession of the foreclosed property. When petitioner filed her
complaint for annulment of sheriffs sale against private
respondents with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction on June 25, 1998, she failed to show sufficient interest
or title in the property sought to be protected as her right of
redemption had already expired on June 23, 1998, i.e. two (2) days
before the filing of the complaint. It is always a ground for
denying injunction that the party seeking it has insufficient title
or interest to sustain it, and no claim to the ultimate relief sought
—in other words, that she shows no equity. The possibility of
irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a
ground for an injunction.
Obligations and Contracts; Novation; Words and Phrases;
Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution
or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which terminates
it, either by changing its objects or principal conditions, or by
substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating
a third person to the rights of the creditor; No novation of a
contract had occurred when the new agreement entered into
between the parties was intended to give life to the old one.—
Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the
substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one
which terminates it, either by changing its objects or principal
conditions, or by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one,
or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.
Under the law, novation is never presumed. The parties to a
contract must expressly agree that they are abrogating their old
contract in favor of a new one. Accordingly, it was held that no
novation of a contract had occurred when the new agreement
entered into between the parties was intended to give life to the
old one.
Same; Same; Where the parties to the new obligation expressly
recognize the continuing existence and validity of the old one,
where, in other words, the parties expressly negated the lapsing of
the old obligation, there can be no novation.—A review of the
“Kasunduang Pag-aayos” which is quoted earlier does not support
petitioner’s contention that it novated the real estate mortgage
since the will to novate did not appear by express agreement of
the parties nor the old and the new contracts were incompatible
in all points. In fact, petitioner expressly recognized in the
Kasunduan the existence and the validity of the old obligation
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
401
secured by a real estate mortgage and asked for a ninety (90) days
grace period to settle her obligation on or before December 21,
1996 and that upon failure to do so, she will execute a deed of sale
with a right to repurchase without interest within one year in
favor of private respondents. Where the parties to the new
obligation expressly recognize the continuing existence and
validity of the old one, where, in other words, the parties
expressly negated the lapsing of the old obligation, there can be
no novation.
Same; Same; It is not proper to consider an obligation novated
by unimportant modifications which do not alter its essence.—
Notably, the provision in the “Kasunduang Pag-aayos” regarding
the execution of a deed of sale with right to repurchase within one
year would have the same effect as the extrajudicial foreclosure of
the real estate mortgage wherein petitioner was given one year
from the registration of the sheriffs sale in the Registry of
property to redeem the property, i.e., failure to exercise the right
of redemption would entitle the purchaser to possession of the
property. It is not proper to consider an obligation novated by
unimportant modifications which do not alter its essence. It bears
stress that the period to pay the total amount of petitioner’s
indebtedness inclusive of interest amounted to P1,233,288.23
expired on December 21, 1996 and petitioner failed to execute a
deed of sale with right to repurchase on the said date up to the
time private respondents filed their petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage. The failure of petitioner to
comply with her undertaking in the “kasunduan” to settle her
obligation effectively delayed private respondents’ right to
extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage which right
accrued as far back as 1994. Thus, petitioner has not shown that
she is entitled to the equitable relief of injunction.
402
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
_______________
403
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
404
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
________________
6 Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion vs. Gervacio, Jr., 304 SCRA 322 (1999).
7 Ibid.; Sales vs. SEC, 169 SCRA 109 (1989).
8 S & A Gaisano Incorporated vs. Hidalgo, 192 SCRA 224 (1990) citing
Rosauro vs. Cuneta, 151 SCRA 575 (1987).
9 Del Rosario vs. CA, 255 SCRA 152 (1996).
10 Del Rosario vs. CA, supra.
406
________________
407
________________
13 Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 otherwise known as The New Local
Government Code of 1991” provides:
“Section 416. The amicable settlement and arbitration award should
have the force and effect of the final judgment of a court.
“Section 417. The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be
enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of
settlement. After the lapse of time, the settlement may be enforced the
action in the appropriate city or municipal court.”
14 Cochingyan. Jr. vs. R&B Surely and Insurance Co., Inc, 151 SCRA
339 (1987) citing De Cortes vs. Venturanza, 79 SCRA 709 (1977).
15 Huibonhua vs. CA, 320 SCRA 625 (1999) citing Rillo vs. CA, 274
SCRA 461 (1997).
16 Ibid.
408
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
________________
17 Huibonhua vs. CA, supra citing Cochingyan, Jr. vs. R&B Surety and
Insurance Co., Inc., supra.
409
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
________________
410
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
5/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001795b4e641ef921adfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11