Orion Savings Bank Vs Suzuki1

In the first week of August 2003, respondent Suzuki, a Japanese national, met with Ms.
Helen Soneja
(Soneja) to inquire about a condominium unit and a parking slot at Cityland Pioneer, Mandaluyong City,
allegedly owned by Yung Sam Kang (Kang), a Korean national and a Special Resident Retiree's Visa
(SRRV) holder. At the meeting, the parties agreed to reduce the price to ₱2,800,000.00. On August 5,
2003, Suzuki issued Kang a Bank of the Philippine Island (BPI) Check No. 83349 for ₱100,000.00 as
reservation fee. On August 21, 2003, Suzuki issued Kang another check, BPI Check No. 83350, this time
for ₱2,700,000.00 representing the remaining balance of the purchase price. Suzuki and Kang then
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 26, 2003 covering Unit No. 536 and Parking Slot No. 42.
Soon after, Suzuki took possession of the condominium unit and parking lot, and commenced the
renovation of the interior of the condominium unit.
Kang thereafter made several representations with Suzuki to deliver the titles to the properties, which
were then allegedly in possession of Alexander Perez (Perez, Orion’s Loans Officer) for safekeeping.
Despite several verbal demands, Kang failed to deliver the documents. Suzuki later on learned that Kang
had left the country, prompting Suzuki to verify the status of the properties with the Mandaluyong City
Registry of Deeds. Suzuki learned that CCT No. 9118 representing the title to the Parking Slot No. 42
contained no annotations although it remained under the name of Cityland Pioneer. This
notwithstanding, Cityland Pioneer, through Assistant Vice President Rosario D. Perez, certified that Kang
had fully paid the purchase price of both the unit and parking lot. The annotation of mortgage in favor of
Orion, was subsequently cancelled on June 16, 2000 by Entry No. 73232/T. No. 10186. Despite the
cancellation of the mortgage to Orion, the titles to the properties remained in possession of Perez.
To protect his interests, Suzuki then executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim dated September 8, 2003,
with the Registry of Deeds of Mandaluyong City. Suzuki then demanded the delivery of the titles. Orion,
(through Perez), however, refused to surrender the titles, and cited the need to consult Orion’s legal
counsel as its reason.
RTC ruled in favor of Suzuki and ordered Orion to deliver the CCT Nos. 18186 and 9118 to Suzuki. The
court found that Suzuki was an innocent purchaser for value whose rights over the properties prevailed
over Orion’s. CA partially granted Orion’s appeal and sustained the RTC insofar as it upheld Suzuki’s right
over the properties. It deviated from the RTC ruling, however, by deleting the award for moral damages,
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, expenses for litigation and cost of suit. Hence, Orion then filed a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court.
Issue: Will the Korean Law prevail on the conveyance of the condominium unit and parking slot?
Held: No.
The Court denied the petition for lack of merit. Philippine Law governs the transfer of real property
It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of the country
or state where it is located. The reason is found in the very nature of immovable property — its
immobility. Immovables are part of the country and so closely connected to it that all rights over them
have their natural center of gravity there. Thus, all matters concerning the title and disposition of real
property are determined by what is known as the Lex loci rei sitae, which can alone prescribe the mode
by which a title can pass from one person to another, or by which an interest therein can be gained or
lost. This general principle includes all rules governing the descent, alienation and transfer of immovable
property and the validity, effect and construction of wills and other conveyances. This principle even
governs the capacity of the person making a deed relating to immovable property, no matter what its
nature may be. Thus, an instrument will be ineffective to transfer title to land if the person making it is
incapacitated by the Lex loci rei sitae, even though under the law of his domicile and by the law of the
place where the instrument is actually made, his capacity is undoubted.
On the other hand, property relations between spouses are governed principally by the national law of
the spouses. However, the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the
foreign law. The foreign law is a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge cannot
take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or the law of the forum. To
prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and
25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Accordingly, matters concerning the title and disposition of real property shall be governed by Philippine
law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property shall be governed by South Korean
law, provided it is proven as a fact.
In the present case, Orion, unfortunately failed to prove the South Korean law on the conjugal
ownership of property. It merely attached a "Certification from the Embassy of the Republic of Korea" to
prove the existence of Korean Law. This certification, does not qualify as sufficient proof of the conjugal
nature of the property for there is no showing that it was properly authenticated by the seal of his
office, as required under Section 24 of Rule 132. Accordingly, the International Law doctrine of
presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play, i.e., where a foreign law is not
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proven, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine
Law.
Under Philippine Law, the phrase "Yung Sam Kang ‘married to' Hyun Sook Jung" is merely descriptive of
the civil status of Kang. In other words, the import from the certificates of title is that Kang is the owner
of the properties as they are registered in his name alone, and that he is married to Hyun Sook Jung. We
are not unmindful that in numerous cases we have held that registration of the property in the name of
only one spouse does not negate the possibility of it being conjugal or community property. In those
cases, however, there was proof that the properties, though registered in the name of only one spouse,
were indeed either conjugal or community properties. Accordingly, we see no reason to declare as
invalid Kang’s conveyance in favor of Suzuki for the supposed lack of spousal consent.

Orion Savings Bank Vs Suzuki1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orion Savings Bank Vs Suzuki1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orion Savings Bank Vs Suzuki1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In the first week of August 2003, respondent Suzuki, a Japanese national, met with Ms.

You might also like