Santiago vs. Pioneer Savings and Loan Bank, et. al G.R. No. 77502; January 5, !

"" #$%&S' Emilia Santiago who is the petitioner in this case is the owner of a parcel of land located in Valenzuela, Manila. On 7 April 19 !, she e"ecuted a Special #ower of Attorne$ in fa%or of &onstruction 'esources &orporation of the #hilippines (&'&#, for short). On April 19 !, &'&# e"ecuted a 'eal Estate Mortgage o%er the *isputed #ropert$ in fa%or of +,-AS,A ,n%estment and +inance &orporation to secure a loan of #1 million. .he mortgage contract specificall$ pro%ided that in the e%ent of default in pa$ment, the mortgagee ma$ immediatel$ foreclose the mortgage /udiciall$ or e"tra/udiciall$. .he promissor$ note e%idencing the inde0tedness was dated 1 March 19 !. On 29 3ul$ 19 !, +,-AS,A e"ecuted in fa%or of defendant4appellee, #ioneer Sa%ings 5 6oan 7an8, ,nc. (*efendant 7an8, for 0re%it$), an 9Outright Sale of 'ecei%a0les without 'ecourse9 including the recei%a0le of #:1;,7<2.<9 from &'&#. &'&# failed to settle its o0ligation and *efendant 7an8 opted for e"tra/udicial foreclosure of the mortgage. .he notice of auction sale was scheduled on 1: Ma$ 19 <. =hen this came to the 8nowledge of Santiago, she filed a complaint with the '.& of Valenzuela to in%alidate the real estate mortgage. .he '.& issued a .'O en/oining the sale at a pu0lic auction of the su0/ect propert$. ,n simple terms, #etitioner is sa$ing that she was not aware of an$ real estate mortgage she had e"ecuted in fa%or of *efendant 0an8 herein. *efendant 7an8 opposed the application for #reliminar$ ,n/unction and asserted its right to e"tra/udiciall$ foreclose the mortgage on the *isputed #ropert$ 0ased on recorded pu0lic documents. And now she comes 0efore the S& and pra$ing that she 0e gi%en 9a real da$ in &ourt9 so that she ma$ testif$ and gi%e her side of the case.

()L*' >pon the factual and legal conte"t, the errors assigned are without merit. ,t is true that the determination of the sufficienc$ of a cause of action must 0e limited to the facts alleged in the &omplaint and no other should 0e considered. ,n this case, howe%er, a hearing was held and documentar$ e%idence was presented, not on the Motion to *ismiss 0ut on the ?uestion of granting or den$ing plaintiff4appellant@s application for a =rit of #reliminar$ ,n/unction, &ounsel for plaintiff4appellant admitted an the e%idence presented. .hat 0eing so, the trial court committed no re%ersi0le error in considering said e%idence in the resolution of the Motion to *ismiss.

=hile, as contended 0$ plaintiff4appellant, some aspects of this case differ from those in Tan, the doctrinal ruling therein, as ?uoted a0o%e, is s?uarel$ applica0le to the case at 0ar. .he cases which plaintiff4appellant cites e"press the general rule when there is no 9documentar$ e%idence admitted 0$ stipulation disclosing facts sufficient to defeat the claim.9 =here, howe%er, such e%idence is 0efore the &ourt and has 0een stipulated upon, a &ourt can go 90e$ond the disclosure in the complaint.9 Moreo%er, the rule is e"plicit that 9rules of procedure are not to 0e applied in a %er$ rigid, technical senseA rules of procedure are used onl$ to help secure su0stantial /ustice.9 .he e%idence on record sufficientl$ defeats plaintiff4appellant@s claim for relief from e"tra/udicial foreclosure. Ber Special #ower of Attorne$ in fa%or of &'&# specificall$ included the authorit$ to mortgage the *isputed #ropert$. .he 'eal Estate Mortgage in fa%or of +,-AS,A e"plicitl$ authorized foreclosure in the e%ent of default. ,ndeed, foreclosure is 0ut a necessar$ conse?uence of non4pa$ment of a mortgage inde0tedness. #laintiff4appellant, therefore, cannot rightfull$ claim that +,-AS,A, as the assignee of the mortgagee, cannot e"tra/udiciall$ foreclose the mortgaged propert$. A mortgage directl$ and immediatel$ su0/ects the propert$ upon which it is imposed to the fulfillment of the o0ligation for whose securit$ it was constituted. =BE'E+O'E, the Order appealed from is here0$ A++,'ME*, with costs against plaintiff4 appellant. SO O'*E'E*.