CIVPRO: Rule 68 522 Flores vs. Sps.

. Lindo (2011) Facts: Edna Lindo obtained a loan from Arturo Flores amounting to Php 400K w/ monthly interest & surcharge in case of late payment. Edna executed a deed of real mortgage & promissory note to secure the said loan. Edna issued 3 checks as partial payments which were dishonored later for insufficiency of funds. This prompted petitioner to file a complaint for the foreclosure of mortgage w/ damages against the respondents. RTC Br 33 held that Flores was not entitled to judicial foreclosure of the mortgage because it found out that the Deed was executed by Edna w/o her husbands consent. Special Power of Attorney by Enrico was only constituted days after the Deed. However, it ruled that Flores was not precluded from recovering the loan from Edna as he could file a personal action against her. Petitioner then filed a complaint for Sum of Money w/ damages against respondents. It was raffled to Branch 42. Respondents admitted their loan but in the tune of Php340L & prayed for dismissal on the grounds of improper venue, res judicata, and forum shopping. RTC Br 42 denied the MTD. CA set aside decision of RTC Br 42 for having been issued w/ GAD. o CA ruled in general that the creditor may institute 2 alternative remedies: either a personal action for the collection of debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage, but not both.

33 to become final and executory w/o asking for an alternative relief. Nevertheless, the petitioner is not w/o remedy. The principle that no person may unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another applies. Article 22 of the Civil Code provides:
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

There is unjust enrichment "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." The principle of unjust enrichment requires 2 conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, & (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another. The principle against unjust enrichment, being a substantive law, should prevail over the procedural rule on multiplicity of suits. Disposition: Court directed RTC Br 42 to proceed with the trial of collection of sum of money.

Issue: WON CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint for collection of sum of money on the ground of multiplicity of suits. - YES Ratio: Generally, it is true that the mortgage-creditor has the option of either filing a personal action for collection of sum of money or instituting a real action to foreclose on the st nd mortgage security. An election of the 1 bars recourse to the 2 , otherwise there would be multiplicity of suits in w/c the debtor would be tossed from one venue to another depending on the location of the mortgaged properties & the residence of the parties. In this case, however, there are circumstances that the Court takes into consideration. Accordingly since the Deed was executed by respondent Edna w/o the consent & authority of her husband, it is void pursuant to Article 96 of the FC. Any disposition or encumbrance without the written consent shall be void. However, both provisions also state that "the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse x x x before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors." The execution of the SPA is the acceptance by the other spouse that perfected the continuing offer as a binding contract between the parties, making the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage a valid contract. But, as noted by CA, petitioner allowed the decision of RTC Br