Civil Law, Remedial Law

Sps. OCHOA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION G.R. No. 192877 March 23, 2011 Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage, Act No. 3135

Petitioners insist that it was error for the CA to rule that the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is binding only on petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed before the RTC of Parañaque City, but not on respondent bank’s Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage, which was filed with the same court.

The case at bar involves petitioners’ mortgaged real property located in Parañaque City over which respondent bank was granted a special power to foreclose extra-judicially. Thus, by express provision of Section 2, the sale can only be made in Parañaque City.

The exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which an extrajudicial foreclosure is not.

Pertinent are the following disquisitions in Supena v. De la Rosa:
Section 1, Rule 2 [of the Rules of Court] defines an action in this wise:
“Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.”

Unlike an action, an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage is initiated by filing a petition not with any court of justice but with the office of the sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made. If ever the executive judge comes into the picture, it is only because he exercises administrative supervision over the sheriff. But this administrative supervision, however, does not change the fact that extrajudicial foreclosures are not judicial proceedings, actions or suits.

Verily then, with respect to the venue of extrajudicial foreclosure sales, Act No. 3135, as amended, applies, it being a special law dealing particularly with extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real estate mortgages, and not the general provisions of the Rules of Court on Venue of Actions.

Consequently, the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is relevant only to actions arising from or related to the mortgage, such as petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *