Herrera v. Leviste

G.R. No. 55744, February 28, 1985

FACTS:

Leviste obtained a loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in the amount of P1,854,311.50. As security therefore, Leviste mortgaged two (2) lots, one located at Parañaque (the Parañaque Property), and the other located at Buendia Avenue, Makati. Leviste sold to Petitioner, Jose V. Herrera, the Buendia Property for the amount of P3,750,000.00. The conditions were that petitioner would: (1) pay Leviste P11,895,688.50; (2) assume Leviste’s indebtedness of P1854,311.50 to the GSIS; and (3) substitute the Paranaque property with his own within a period of six (6) months. For his part, Leviste undertook to arrange for the conformity of the GSIS to petitioner’s assumption of the obligation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition shall gain merit?

RULING:

The petition was denied due to the following reasons:

1. (a) The GSIS has not benefited in any way at the expense of petitioner. What it received, by way of redemption from respondent Marcelo, was the mortgage loan it had extended plus interest and sundry charges.
(b)Neither has Marcelo benefited at the expense of petitioner. Said respondent had paid to GSIS the amount P 3,232,766.94, which is not far below the sum of P 3,750,000.00, which was the consideration petitioner would have paid to Leviste had his contract been consummated.
(c)Leviste had neither profited at the expense of petitioner, For Losing his Buendia Property, all he had received was P 1,854,311.50 from GSIS less amounts he had paid, plus P 1,895,688.00 paid to him by petitioner, the total of which is substantially a reasonable value of the Buendia Property.

2. It is quite true that petitioner had lost the P 1,895,688.00 he had paid to Leviste, plus P 300,000.00 he had paid to GSIS, less the rentals he had received when in possession of the Buendia Property. That loss is attributable to his fault in:

(a)Not having been able to submit collateral to GSIS in substitution of the Paranaque Property;
(b)Not paying off the mortgage debt when GSIS decided to foreclose; and
(c)Not making an earnest effort to redeem the property as a possible redemptioner.

3. It cannot be validly said that petitioner had fully complied with all the conditions of his contract with Leviste. For one thing, he was not able to substitute the Parañaque Property with another collateral for the GSIS loan. Moreover, as stated by the Court of Appeals, “nowhere in the letter (of the GSIS) was mentioned that a final deed of sale must first be executed and presented before the assumption may be considered. For if it was really the intention of GSIS, the requirement of Deed of Sale should have been stated in its letter.

 * Case digest by Daisy Mae Tambulero, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018