Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Orion V Suzuki-Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maki Cabuena
    This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a condominium unit and parking lot between Shigekane Suzuki, who purchased the properties from Yung Sam Kang, and Orion Savings Bank, which claimed ownership over the properties. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Suzuki, finding that under Philippine law, which governs matters concerning title and disposition of real property located in the Philippines, Suzuki was the rightful owner after purchasing from Kang. The Supreme Court denied Orion's appeal, as Orion failed to sufficiently prove that under South Korean family law, which governs issues around conjugal property, the sale was invalid without consent of Kang's spouse.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Orion V Suzuki-Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maki Cabuena
    93 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a condominium unit and parking lot between Shigekane Suzuki, who purchased the properties from Yung Sam Kang, and Orion Savings Bank, which claimed ownership over the properties. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Suzuki, finding that under Philippine law, which governs matters concerning title and disposition of real property located in the Philippines, Suzuki was the rightful owner after purchasing from Kang. The Supreme Court denied Orion's appeal, as Orion failed to sufficiently prove that under South Korean family law, which governs issues around conjugal property, the sale was invalid without consent of Kang's spouse.

    Original Title

    ORION V SUZUKI-CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a condominium unit and parking lot between Shigekane Suzuki, who purchased the properties from Yung Sam Kang, and Orion Savings Bank, which claimed ownership over the properties. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Suzuki, finding that under Philippine law, which governs matters concerning title and disposition of real property located in the Philippines, Suzuki was the rightful owner after purchasing from Kang. The Supreme Court denied Orion's appeal, as Orion failed to sufficiently prove that under South Korean family law, which governs issues around conjugal property, the sale was invalid without consent of Kang's spouse.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views2 pages

    Orion V Suzuki-Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maki Cabuena
    This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a condominium unit and parking lot between Shigekane Suzuki, who purchased the properties from Yung Sam Kang, and Orion Savings Bank, which claimed ownership over the properties. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Suzuki, finding that under Philippine law, which governs matters concerning title and disposition of real property located in the Philippines, Suzuki was the rightful owner after purchasing from Kang. The Supreme Court denied Orion's appeal, as Orion failed to sufficiently prove that under South Korean family law, which governs issues around conjugal property, the sale was invalid without consent of Kang's spouse.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    205487 November 12, 2014


    CASE DIGEST: ORION SAVINGS BANK v. SHIGEKANE SUZUKI

    Facts of the case:


    In the first week of August 2003, Shigekane Suzuki (Suzuki), a Japanese National, met with
    Ms. Helen Soneja (Soneja) to inquire about a condominium unit and a parking lot 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, Soneja informed Suzuki that the unit and parking lot were for sale for Php
    3,000,000.00, and the former assured Suzuki that the titles to the said property were clean. After a
    brief negotiation, the parties agreed to reduce the price to Php 2,800,000.00. Suzuki and Kang
    then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 26, 2003. Soon after, Suzuki took
    possession of the condominium unit and parking lot and commenced the renovation of the unit’s
    interior. 
    However, the titles to the properties were not delivered to Suzuki. Kang argued that the
    documents were allegedly in possession of Alexander Perez (Perez, Orion’s Loan Officer) for
    safekeeping. Despite several verbal demands, Kang failed to deliver the documents. Suzuki later
    on learned that Kang had left the country, prompting the former to verify the status of the
    properties with Mandaluyong City Registry of Deeds. 
    Suzuki found out that the titles to the properties remained in possession of Perez, despite
    the cancellation of the mortgage to Orion (CCT No. 18186, Entry No. 6643/C-10186). This
    prompted Suzuki to execute an Affidavit of Adverse Claim for the said properties with the Registry
    of Deeds of Mandaluyong City and demanded the delivery of titles from Orion. However, Orion’s
    counsel sent a letter to Suzuki stating that Kang obtained another loan from them, and when Kang
    failed to pay, he executed a Dacion en Pago in favor of Orion covering Unit No. 536. 
    On January 27, 2004, Suzuki filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
    against Kang and Orion. On June 29, 2009, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 213,
    Mandaluyong City ruled in favor of Suzuki and ordered Orion to deliver the CCT Nos. 18186 and
    9118 to Suzuki. The RTC further ordered Orion and Kang to jointly and severally pay Suzuki moral
    damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, appearance fees, expenses for litigation and cost
    of suit. 
    Orion appealed the RTC decision with the Court of Appeals (CA), and CA partially granted
    petitioner’s appeal and sustained the RTC insofar as it upheld Suzuki’s right over the properties.
    Orion sought a reconsideration of the CA decision, but the CA denied the motion. This prompted
    Orion to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court based on the following
    arguments/grounds:
    1. The Deed of Sale executed by Kang in favor of Suzuki is null and void. Under Korean
    law, any conveyance of a conjugal property should be made with the consent of both
    spouses;
    2. Suzuki is not a buyer in good faith for he failed to check the owner’s duplicate copies of
    the CCTs;
    3. Knowledge of the PRA restriction under Entry No. 6643/C-10186, which prohibits any
    conveyance or encumbrance of the property investment, defeats the alleged claim of
    good faith by Suzuki; and
    4. Orion should not be faulted for exercising due diligence. 
    Issues:

    CABUENA,2021
    1. Whether matters pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property shall be governed by
    the South Korean law.
    2. Whether matters concerning the title and disposition of real properties shall be governed
    by Philippine law. 

    Ruling:
    The petition was denied for lack of merit.
    In the present case, while the courts both arrived at the same conclusion, there appears to
    be an incongruence in their factual findings and the legal principle they applied to the attendant
    factual circumstances. 
    On the issue whether matters pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property shall be
    governed by the South Korean law, property relations between spouses are governed principally
    by the national law of the spouses. 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 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, if not proven, the presumption is
    that foreign law is the same as Philippine law. 
    Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to declare as invalid Kang’s conveyance in favor of
    Suzuki for the supposed lack of spousal consent. 
    On the other hand, the issue of whether matters concerning the title and disposition of real
    properties shall be governed by the Philippine law, Article 16 of the New Civil Code stipulates that
    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. 
    Thus, all matters concerning the title and disposition of the 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 may be gained or lost.  

    CABUENA,2021

    You might also like