Sering v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Democrito O. Sering and Juanita T. Sering executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Clarita L. Garcia for a loan of P200,000.00. Juanita failed to pay monthly installments. Clarita sent demand letters for payment, threatening extra-judicial foreclosure. Juanita promised to pay by a specific date, failing which Clarita would be free to take action. Procedural History: Clarita filed a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure. Juanita filed a complaint for injunction to stop the sale, but the trial court took no action, and the property was sold with Clarita as the highest bidder. Juanita amended her complaint, praying for the declaration of nullity of the mortgage contract and foreclosure proceedings, alleging the loan amount was only P100,000.00 and she had already paid P200,000.00. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Petition: Juanita T. Sering filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner has actually paid her loan to respondent as to preclude the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. Whether the Supreme Court can review factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
Whether petitioner has actually paid her loan to respondent as to preclude the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage: The Court found that the issue of payment is a factual issue. Petitioner insisted she paid but respondent refused receipts. The Court noted that if a creditor refuses to issue a receipt for payment, the debtor may consign the payment to the court in accordance with the Civil Code. Consignation releases the debtor from responsibility when the creditor refuses without just cause to accept payment or issue a receipt. Petitioner failed to show she resorted to consignation. Whether the Supreme Court can review factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law. Factual issues are not reviewable by the Supreme Court in such petitions. The Court enumerated ten exceptions where factual issues may be reviewed, but found that none of these exceptions were present in the instant case. Therefore, the Supreme Court could not delve into the factual dispute of whether the loan was paid.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law, and factual issues are generally not reviewable by the Supreme Court, except under specific exceptions. A debtor who claims to have paid a loan but was refused a receipt should consign the payment to the court to be released from responsibility.