FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 115608, November 28, 1996]
FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) INC., PETITIONER VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS
FACTS:
On March 31, 1982, Fortune Motors (Phils.) Inc. (FMP) acquired loans from the
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) with the amounts of (1) 20,000,000
pesos [March 31, 1982]; (2) 8,000,000 pesos [April 30, 1983]; (3) 2,500,000.00 pesos
[June 8, 1983] and; (4) 3,000,000 pesos [August 16, 1983]. Fortune Motors secured the
loans which totaled 34,150,000.00 pesos by mortgaging certain real estate in favor of
the Metropolitan Bank. Fortune Motors were not able to pay the loan upon maturity
because of financial constraints. Due to Fortune Motors’ failure to pay, the Metropolitan
Bank started extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, which led to foreclosing of the real
estate mortgage. The extrajudicial foreclosure was administered by Senior Deputy
Sheriff Pablo Y. Sy who had sent copies of the Notice of Extrajudicial Sale to Fortune
Motors and the Metropolitan Bank by registered mail. The copies of the Notice of
Sheriff’s Sale were posted at three conspicuous public places in Makati, namely: the
office of the Sheriff, the Assessor’s office, and the Register of Deeds. On May 20, 1984,
Pablo executed the Certificates of Posting. The Notice of Sheriff’s Sale was published in
June 2, 9, and 16, 1984 in three issues of “The New Record”.
The mortgaged property sold for 47,899,264.91 pesos at a public auction to the
highest bidder which was the Metropolitan Bank. The mortgaged property was failed to
be redeemed by Fortune Motors within the one-year redemption period, consequently,
the titles thereto were merged in the name of the Metropolitan Bank which entitled the
bank to the possession of the property mortgaged and, in fact possessed the same.
Fortune Motors filed a complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure. The
trial court provided their judgment of the case by annulling the extrajudicial foreclosure
of the mortgage on December 27, 1991. The Metropolitan Bank made an appeal to the
Court of Appeals (CA) to review the case on May 14, 1992. The CA reversed the
decision made by the trial court. Fortune Motors filed a motion for Reconsideration,
which was denied on April 26, 1994. After the decision made by the CA, Fortune Motors
has appealed before the Supreme Court to review the case.
MAIN ISSUE/S: Was the decision of the CA in declaring that the publication
of the notice of extrajudicial was valid correct or not?
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the CA correctly declared that the
publication of the notice of extrajudicial to be valid. The petition of Fortune Motor is
denied and the decision rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 38340 is affirmed.
RATIO:
The Supreme Court stated the ruling in Bonnevie v. CA, which is that a
newspaper of general circulation does not need to have the largest circulation. It is
enough that (1) it is published for the dissemination of local news and general
information; (2) that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; (3) and it is
published at regular intervals. The New Record complies with the following
requirements since as testified by Pero Deyto (Executive Editor of New Record): (1)
New Record contains news (2) that it has subscribers from Metro Manila and form all
over the Philippines, (3) that it is published once a week or four times a month and; (4)
that he has been connected with the newspaper since 1958, an indication that the said
newspaper had been in existence even before that year.
The Supreme Court also discusses that New Record has complied with the
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1079 and Article 3135 since they do not require a
newspaper that publishes judicial notices to be a daily newspaper since, as stated in
P.D. No. 1079, it is enough that it be a “newspaper or periodical which is authorized by
law to publish and which is regularly published for at least one (1) year before date of
publication.
EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 115908-09, November 28, 1996]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. DANNY GODOY,*
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS:
Two separate informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) (in
Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 47) for charging Danny Godoy wuth rape
and kidnapping with serious illegal detention, respectively punished under Articles 335
and 267 of the Revised Penal Code. On January 21 2994, at Barangay Pulot Center,
Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Province of Palawan, Philippines, Danny by means of
force, threat, and intimidation; by using a knife and by means of deceit, did then and
there wilfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Mia Taha to her damage
and prejudice. On January 22 1994, at Barangay Ipilan, Municipality of Brooke’s Point,
Province of Palawan, Philippines, Danny, a private individual, and being a teacher of the
victim, Mia, and by means of deceit did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously kidnap or detained Mia (girl with age of 17 years old) for 5 days this
depriving Mia of her liberty against her will and consent and without legal justification, to
the damage and prejudice of Mia. The RTC, on May 20, 1994, rendered judgment
finding Danny guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and kidnapping with
serious illegal detention, and sentenced him to the maximum penalty of death in both
cases. Records show that Mia Taha and Helen Taha, respectively, filed complaints for
rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention with the MTC of Brooke’s Point. The
MTC issued a resolution on February 10, 1994, the spouses Adjeril Taha and Helen
Taha executed an affidavit of desistance withdrawing the charge of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention. However, on March 11, 1994, Prosecutor Reynaldo II issued a
joint resolution, two separate informations for rape and for kidnapping with serious
illegal detention were nevertheless filed against Danny with no bail recommended in
both charges. Danny is now seeking from the SC the reversal of the judgment of the
Trial Court.
MAIN ISSUE/S:
Was the Trial Court correct or not to impose the death penalty for each of
the crimes charged on Danny despite the fact that the crimes were allegedly
committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659?
HELD:
The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court was correct in imposing the death
penalty for each of the crimes charged on Danny. The Supreme Court has reversed and
set aside the judgment appealed and has acquitted Danny Godoy of the crimes of rape
and kidnapping with serious illegal detention. SC ordered that Danny be released
forthwith, unless he is otherwise detained for any other valid cause.
RATIO:
The SC found that the Trial Court was correct in imposing the death penalty on the
charges against Danny since Republic Act No. 7659 which reimposed the death penalty
on certain heinous crimes took effect on December 31, 1993, that is, fifteen days after
its publication in the December 16, 1993 issues of the Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star,
Malaya, and Philippine Times Journal.