Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 229 views

    China Banking Corporation V Mercedes M. Oliver

    Uploaded by

    zane
    This case involves two individuals, Mercedes M. Oliver One and Mercedes M. Oliver Two, who both claim to be the rightful owner of a property used as collateral for a loan from China Banking Corporation. Oliver Two filed a case against the bank seeking to annul the mortgage on the property. The bank filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Oliver One was an indispensable party who was not joined in the case. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that Oliver One was not an indispensable party because Oliver Two could prove her claims of being the real owner of the property without Oliver One's participation. The bank's interests in recovering the loan from Oliver One were also distinct and divisible from the issues in the case between Oliver Two

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    China Banking Corporation V Mercedes M. Oliver

    Uploaded by

    zane
    229 views2 pages
    This case involves two individuals, Mercedes M. Oliver One and Mercedes M. Oliver Two, who both claim to be the rightful owner of a property used as collateral for a loan from China Banking Corporation. Oliver Two filed a case against the bank seeking to annul the mortgage on the property. The bank filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Oliver One was an indispensable party who was not joined in the case. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that Oliver One was not an indispensable party because Oliver Two could prove her claims of being the real owner of the property without Oliver One's participation. The bank's interests in recovering the loan from Oliver One were also distinct and divisible from the issues in the case between Oliver Two

    Original Title

    40. China Banking Corporation v Mercedes m. Oliver

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two individuals, Mercedes M. Oliver One and Mercedes M. Oliver Two, who both claim to be the rightful owner of a property used as collateral for a loan from China Banking Corporation. Oliver Two filed a case against the bank seeking to annul the mortgage on the property. The bank filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Oliver One was an indispensable party who was not joined in the case. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that Oliver One was not an indispensable party because Oliver Two could prove her claims of being the real owner of the property without Oliver One's participation. The bank's interests in recovering the loan from Oliver One were also distinct and divisible from the issues in the case between Oliver Two

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    229 views2 pages

    China Banking Corporation V Mercedes M. Oliver

    Uploaded by

    zane
    This case involves two individuals, Mercedes M. Oliver One and Mercedes M. Oliver Two, who both claim to be the rightful owner of a property used as collateral for a loan from China Banking Corporation. Oliver Two filed a case against the bank seeking to annul the mortgage on the property. The bank filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Oliver One was an indispensable party who was not joined in the case. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that Oliver One was not an indispensable party because Oliver Two could prove her claims of being the real owner of the property without Oliver One's participation. The bank's interests in recovering the loan from Oliver One were also distinct and divisible from the issues in the case between Oliver Two

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, V MERCEDES M.

    OLIVER

    G.R. No. 135796 October 3, 2002

    QUISUMBING, J

    Facts: In August 1995, Pangan Lim, Jr. and a certain Mercedes M. Oliver opened a joint account in China
    Banking Corporation. Thereafter, Lim and Oliver applied for a P17 million loan, offering as collateral a
    7,782 square meter lot located in Tunasan, Muntinlupa and covered by TCT No. S-50195 in the name of
    Oliver. The bank approved the application. On November 17, 1995, Lim and Oliver executed in favor of
    Chinabank a promissory note for P16,650,000, as well as a Real Estate Mortgage on the property.

    On November 18, 1996, respondent claiming that she is Mercedes M. Oliver filed an action for
    annulment of mortgage and cancellation of title with damages against Chinabank, Register of Deeds
    Atty. Mila G. Flores, and Deputy Register of Deeds Atty. Ferdinand P. Ignacio. Respondent, whom we
    shall call as "Oliver Two," claimed that she was the registered and lawful owner of the land subject of
    the real estate mortgage; that the owner’s duplicate copy of the title had always been in her possession;
    and that she did not apply for a loan or surrender her title to Chinabank.

    On January 31, 1997, Chinabank moved to dismiss the case for lack of cause of action and non-joinder of
    an indispensable party, the mortgagor.

    Issue: w/n the motion to dismiss was valid?

    Hel: No. An indispensable party is a party in interest, without whom no final determination can be had
    of an action. It is true that mortgagor Oliver One is a party in interest, for she will be affected by the
    outcome of the case. She stands to be benefited in case the mortgage is declared valid, or injured in
    case her title is declared fake. However, mortgagor Oliver One’s absence from the case does not hamper
    the trial court in resolving the dispute between respondent Oliver Two and petitioner.

    A perusal of Oliver Two’s allegations in the complaint below shows that it was for annulment of
    mortgage due to petitioner’s negligence in not determining the actual ownership of the property,
    resulting in the mortgage’s annotation on TCT No. S-50195 in the Registry of Deeds’ custody. To support
    said allegations, respondent Oliver Two had to prove (1) that she is the real Mercedes M. Oliver referred
    to in the TCT, and (2) that she is not the same person using that name who entered into a deed of
    mortgage with the petitioner. This, respondent Oliver Two can do in her complaint without necessarily
    impleading the mortgagor Oliver One. Hence, Oliver One is not an indispensable party in the case filed
    by Oliver Two.

    A party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and
    divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment
    which does complete justice to the parties in court. In this case, Chinabank has interest in the loan
    which, however, is distinct and divisible from the mortgagor’s interest, which involves the land used as
    collateral for the loan. Further, a declaration of the mortgage’s nullity in this case will not necessarily
    prejudice mortgagor Oliver One. The bank still needs to initiate proceedings to go after the mortgagor,
    who in turn can raise other defenses pertinent to the two of them. A party is also not indispensable if his
    presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or
    will simply avoid multiple litigation, as in the case of Chinabank and mortgagor Oliver One. The latter’s
    participation in this case will simply enable petitioner Chinabank to make its claim against her in this
    case, and hence, avoid the institution of another action. Thus, it was the bank who should have filed a
    third-party complaint or other action versus the mortgagor Oliver One.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy