Ruiz v. CA & Torres (2003)

RUIZ v. CA and TORRES

GR No. 146942

April 22, 2003

Ponente: Justice Puno

FACTS:

Corazon Ruiz (petitioner) is engaged in the business of buying and selling jewelry and obtained loans from Consuelo Torres (private respondent) on different occasions. A promissory note dated March 22, 1995 was issued and the consolidated loan of P750,000,00 was secured by a 240-square meter lot in Quezon City, which is registered in the name of the petitioner. Ruiz was then able to obtain additional loans from Torres which totaled P300,00 supported by promissory notes. Moreover, subsequent loans pledged by Corazon were secured of P571,000 worth of jewelries. Ruiz was able to regularly deliver payments, on March 1996 however, Ruiz was unable to make interest payments due to difficulties collecting related to her business. Due to Ruiz’s failure to pay, Torres demanded payment not only of the principal loan of P750,000.00 but also of the P300,000 loan. When Ruiz deliver the said payments, Torres sought the extrajudicial foreclosure of the aforementioned lot. A Notice of Sheriffs Sale was issued, and the public auction was schedule on October 8, 1995. Ruiz then filed a complaint asking for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to restrain the sheriff from proceeding with the foreclosure sale a day before the scheduled auction sale. Furthermore, Ruiz requested that her indebtedness be fixed at P706,000 based on the aggregate total of the two loans including the interests and subtracting the amount of payments already made. On October 29, 1996, the lower court granted the issuance of the TRO, issued a writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the desistance of the foreclosure sale given that the mortgaged property lacked the signature of Corazon’s husband, thus rendering the same as unenforceable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the lower court and ruled that the real estate mortgage is valid despite the non-participation of Ruiz’s husband. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s computation regarding the amount to be paid, with modifications on interest rates and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the real property covered by the subject

RATIONALE:

- Yes. The property subject of the mortgage is registered in the name of Corazon G. Ruiz. Thus, the title is registered in the name of Corazon alone because “married to Rogelio Ruiz” is merely descriptive.

- Acquisition of title and registration are two different acts. The property could have been acquired by Corazon why she was single and registered only after marriage.

JUDGMENT:

- Appealed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.