Joe Pallugna
SPOUSES Catherine and Fernando owned a parcel of land. Fernando met Belle who convinced Fernando to engage in a neon advertising business and to use Fernando’s land as collateral on a loan with Metrobank.
When Fernando died, and Belle failed to pay the loan, Metrobank forclosed on the land. Catherine claimed that the loan had been paid with the Mortgage Redemption Insurance since Fernando already died.
Metrobank disagreed arguing that the principal borrower was Belle and not Fernando so it was Belle who was covered by the MRI, not Fernando.
The trial court ruled against Catherine stating that the principal borrower was indeed Belle and not Fernando so the MRI did not result in the payment of the loan. However, the trial court ruled that Belle should pay Catherine for damages resulting from the loss of the land since Belle benefited from the loan proceeds.
Catherine appealed the court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals. Belle did not appeal. The CA ruled by affirming the trial court’s ruling that Fernando was not covered by the MRI as it was Belle who was the principal borrower. However, the CA reversed the trial court’s finding of Belle’s liability for damages to Catherine. Was the CA correct on Belle’s lack of liability to Catherine?
The Supreme Court held that “the failure of a party to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rule of Court unavoidably renders the judgment final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction to review and alter the judgment. The judgment becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. Corollary thereto, an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the court below.”
This ruling in the case of Catherine Hiponia-Mayuga versus Metrobank, G.R. No. 211499, June 22, 2015, finds application in a lot of cases. Although this ruling states several exceptions, the general rule finds many appellees in this unalterable situation. As in ejectment cases where the respondents are ordered evicted and only a few appeal the trial court’s ruling, those who did not participate in the appeal can be ejected while the appealing respondents can avail of certain rights pending appeal.
E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com
Disclaimer
Mindanao Gold Star Daily holds the copyrights of all articles and photos in perpetuity. Any unauthorized reproduction in any platform, electronic and hardcopy, shall be liable for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Rights Law of the Philippines.
