GR 44834; (November, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44834 ; November 26, 1938
LA PREVISORA FILIPINA, Mutual Building and Loan Association, petitioner-appellee, vs. FELIX Z. LEDDA, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
On July 21, 1928, respondent Felix Z. Ledda executed a mortgage deed in favor of petitioner La Previsora Filipina, with a stipulation allowing extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135 in case of default. A supplementary loan deed was executed on January 23, 1929. Due to Ledda’s failure to pay, the mortgaged property was extrajudicially sold at public auction on May 24, 1935, with La Previsora as the highest bidder. Before the expiration of the one-year redemption period, La Previsora filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession. The trial court granted the motion on July 12, 1935, ordering possession to be delivered upon the filing of a bond. Ledda moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
1. Whether Act No. 3135 authorized the purchaser to take possession of the foreclosed property during the redemption period.
2. Whether Act No. 4118 , which amended Act No. 3135 to allow such possession, applied retroactively to mortgage contracts executed before its effectivity.
3. Whether Act No. 4118 was constitutional.
RULING
1. No. Act No. 3135 , in force at the time the mortgage contracts were executed, only authorized the extrajudicial sale itself and did not permit the purchaser to take possession during the one-year redemption period.
2. No. Act No. 4118 , which took effect on December 7, 1933, and expressly allowed possession during redemption via a summary proceeding, could not be applied retroactively. Civil laws have no retroactive effect unless expressly provided. The determinative date is the execution of the contracts (1928 and 1929), not the date of the foreclosure sale (1935). Since Act No. 4118 contained no retroactivity clause, it did not govern the parties’ contracts.
3. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Act No. 4118 , having found it inapplicable to the case.
The trial court’s order granting the writ of possession was reversed. La Previsora was not entitled to possession during the redemption period. Costs were assessed against the petitioner-appellee.
AI Generated by Armztrong.