The appellant bank held a first-ranking hypothec on an immovable, which was subsequently acquired by the respondents through a taking in payment under their second hypothec.
When the original debtor later defaulted on the bank's loan, the bank exercised its hypothecary remedy by filing a motion for forced surrender and taking in payment against the respondents as the new owners of the immovable.
The Superior Court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeal set it aside on the basis that prescription of the personal obligation had been acquired during the proceeding and extinguished the hypothec.
The majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that it agreed entirely with the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
The dissent would have allowed the appeal, holding that a hypothecary creditor exercising its remedy against a hypothecary debtor who is not the personal debtor interrupts prescription at the time of filing, and the conditions of the Civil Code were all met at that date.
