Goldland Tower Condominium Corporation v. Edward L. Lim

Summary

The Supreme Court resolved the distinction between demand and notice in foreclosure proceedings. Goldland Tower Condominium Corporation sought to foreclose its lien for unpaid association dues against Edward Lim, who acquired a condominium unit through tax sale. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Goldland but later dismissed the case in an Amended Decision, finding that absence of prior extrajudicial demand made the foreclosure premature. The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that demand and notice are distinct legal concepts, and that filing a judicial foreclosure complaint itself constitutes sufficient judicial demand under Article 1169 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that extrajudicial demand is not required before judicial demand, and that judicial foreclosure under Rule 68 does not require prior extrajudicial demand for payment of the principal obligation. This decision reinforces creditors' rights to choose between extrajudicial and judicial remedies without mandatory sequencing, while maintaining the validity of condominium liens that survive changes in property ownership.