Syjuco, Inc. v. Tecson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents executed a consolidated promissory note for P2,460,000 in favor of petitioner, secured by a mortgage on certain parcels of land. The loan matured on November 8, 1967. Petitioner initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings when the loan was not paid, with a sale scheduled for December 27, 1968. Procedural History: To forestall the foreclosure, private respondents filed Civil Case No. 75180, seeking to declare the mortgage void due to usury. This case was decided in favor of petitioner, with the Supreme Court denying a petition for review. Subsequently, private respondents filed Civil Case No. 112762, seeking to declare the foreclosure sale void for lack of republication. Branch IX initially issued a restraining order but later lifted it and denied the preliminary injunction. Private respondents moved for consolidation, which respondent Judge denied, citing the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 75180. In Civil Case No. 75180, private respondents filed a motion to stop the auction sale due to lack of republication. Petitioner commented that it had republished the notice. Respondent Judge issued a restraining order on February 19, 1979, but lifted it on March 6, 1979, stating the case was finally decided. However, hours later, on a verbal motion and without notice, respondent Judge reconsidered and postponed the sale upon posting of a bond. Reconsideration was denied. Private respondents sought an extension to file the bond, which was granted. Petitioner filed oppositions and motions for reconsideration. Private respondents then filed a motion to discharge the mortgage, claiming the posted bond novated the mortgage. On August 10, 1979, respondent Judge ordered private respondents to file an additional bond and authorized them to sell the property within four months, denying the motion to discharge the mortgage and petitioner's motions for reconsideration. Both parties filed further motions for reconsideration, which were denied on October 8, 1979. Private respondents filed another motion for reconsideration, which was granted on November 7, 1979, on the ground of no opposition. Petitioner filed a manifestation and opposition, stating it received the motion late. On November 29, 1980, respondent Judge ordered private respondents to file an additional bond of P3,000,000. On January 28, 1980, respondent Judge issued an order granting private respondents a two-month extension to sell the mortgaged property, subject to filing an additional P3,000,000 bond. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying for the declaration of nullity of respondent Judge's orders due to grave abuse of discretion and for a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Petitioner argued that the pendency of Civil Case No. 112762 did not bar foreclosure, as the issues were either moot or already decided, and that the posting of bonds did not constitute novation of the mortgage.
Issue(s)
Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 112762 constitutes a bar to the foreclosure and auction sale of the mortgaged properties, the legality and validity of which have already been upheld by this Court in a final and executory judgment. Whether the filing of the bonds by the private respondents resulted in the novation of the mortgage, thereby preventing its foreclosure.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the questioned orders of the respondent Judge, made permanent the preliminary injunction previously issued by this Court, and ordered the cancellation of the bond filed in connection therewith. The sheriff was directed to proceed with the auction sale.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the complaint in Civil Case No. 112762 had become moot and academic because petitioner republished the notice of sale, resolving the issue of republication. Therefore, the pendency of Civil Case No. 112762 did not constitute a valid bar to the foreclosure proceedings, especially since the underlying mortgage and the right to foreclose had already been upheld by this Court in a final and executory judgment. Any attempt to relitigate issues already decided by a final judgment is considered moot and academic and cannot impede the execution of said judgment. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the theory of private respondents that their filing of the bonds resulted in the novation of the mortgage was without merit. The bonds were for guaranteeing payment of damages resulting from the suspension of the auction sale, not to extinguish the mortgage. Novation requires a clear intent to extinguish the old obligation, which was absent. Furthermore, the bondsmen's authority was suspended, casting doubt on the enforceability of the bonds, and petitioner was not disposed to accept a new bond, rendering the novation argument futile.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable and unalterable. Subsequent actions or motions that seek to relitigate issues already passed upon by a final judgment are deemed moot and academic. Moreover, the Court clarified that the posting of a bond to guarantee against damages during a foreclosure sale does not constitute novation of the mortgage contract, as the bond's purpose is limited to securing potential damages and does not extinguish the underlying obligation or the mortgage lien.