Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PNB
Facts:
1. Eduarda Belo owned an agricultural land from which she leased a portion to Sps.
Marcos and Sps. Eslabon.
2. Respondent Sps. Eslabon later obtained a loan from PNB secured by real estate
mortgages; 4 residential houses and the agri land of Belo.
3. Consent of Belo was acquired as evidenced by the SPA.
4. Failing to pay the loan, the properties were foreclosed, including that of Belo who
is merely an accommodation mortgagor.
5. Belo later sold her redemption right to Petitioner who tendered payment for the
redemption of the agri land for P 484,482.96. This was however rejected by PNB,
arguing that the redemption price is P 2,779,978.72, representing the entire
amount due to PNB, should the debtor-mortgagor wish to redeem the property.
Issue: Redemption price.
Held
1. The mortgage is valid as Eduarda Belos consent was properly obtained. As such,
Belo became an accommodation mortgagor in the sense the she signed the SPA
to authorize Sps. Eslabon to mortgage her property without receiving any of the
proceeds.
The redemption price should be in accordance with Sec. 6 of Act No. 3135 and Sec.
25 of P.D. No. 694. The latter provision should be interpreted according to its
constricted meaning. That the debtor-mortgagor is the one required to pay all the
claims of the bank against him while as regards the debtor who is merely an
accommodation mortgagor, she should be allowed to redeem the property by
paying only the bid price. To hold otherwise would make the accommodation
mortgagor a debtor-mortgagor.
DBP v Licuanan
Facts
Licuanans were granted a piggery loan and 5 other loans, secured by a REM,
evidenced by promissory notes
DBP then sent a letter informing Licuanan that they breached the conditions
of the mortgage, as such the mortgaged properties were to be sold by the
sheriff -> filed for an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, which DBP was
the highest bidder.
The certificate of sale was registered and after a year DBP consolidated its
ownership
After more than a year DBP wrote to respondents informing them that the
now acquired bank assets would be disposed of by public auction, by oral
bidding. But there were no bidders.
Later of that same year DBP sent another letter informing Licuanan that could
reacquire the land through a negotiated sale for cash or installment.
The licuanans sent a letter that they wanted to repurchase the properties
However 3 days later they executed a conditional sale to Peralta.
DBP held that the maturity dates indicate a demand for payment of the
promissory notes
TC found that there was no demand present
CA affirmed
Issue
Whether or not there was a demand for payment of the loans was made before the
mortgage was foreclosed
Held:
There was no valid demand present.
Well-settled is the rule that since a cause of action requires, as essential elements,
not only a legal right of the plaintiff and a correlative duty of the defendant but also
"an act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right," the cause of
action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, expressly or impliedly, to
comply with its duty.
Unless demand is proven, one cannot be held in default. DBPs cause of action did
not accrue on the maturity dates stated in the promissory notes. It is only when
demand to pay is made and subsequently refused that respondents can be
considered in default and petitioner obtains the right to file an action to collect the
debt or foreclose the mortgage.
The maturity dates only indicate when payment can be demanded. It is the refusal
to pay after demand that gives the creditor a cause of action against the debtor.
Since demand was never made by DBP, the foreclosure was premature and
therefore null and void.
The licuanas were interested in purchasing the property, this did not hold them in
estoppel that mortgage was validly foreclosed, by reason that the essence of
redemption that such property would be redeemed back to the Licuanans.
Maglaque and Payawal were the owners of a 464 sq m land and the
residential house constructed therein.
1974, Maglaque obtained a 2k loan from Bulacan Development Bank (know
known as planters) payable in 2 installments in the year 1974 and 1975, with
a 12% interest per annum and secured the loan with the rem on the house
and lot. Which the bank accepted.
In 1976 Payawal died (wife)
In 1977 Maglaque paid the 2k, which the bank accepted
1979 Maglaque died
1978 the REM was foreclosed for non payment of the full loan
1980, lapse of the redemption period, Planters consolidated its title
Afterwards the Maglaque heir filed an annulment of sale and reconveyance of
title. The bank sold the lot to Beltran.
Issue:
Whether or not REM was validly foreclosed
Held:
Yes. A secured creditor holding a REM has 3 options upon the death of the debtor:
1. To waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the
mortgagors as an ordinary claim;
2. Foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim
and;
3. Rely on the mortgage exclusively, foreclosing the same at any time before it is
barred by prescription, without right to file a claim for any deficiency.
Here the bank availed of the 3rd option which was to exclusively foreclose the
mortgage since Maglaque did not pay the whole amount, which included the 12%
interest.
-Affidavit of Publication was excluded by the TC for being heaesay, and such was not
contended by the petitioner bank
Held: SC affirmed CA ruling. Petition is denied. Petitioners argument that the deed
of sale executed by Veterans in its own favor during the consolidation of title which
constitutes Pactum Comisorium which is prohibited by law---- is without merit.
Veterans did not, upon the petitioners default, automatically acquire or appropriate
the mortgaged property for itself. Veterans went through all the stages of
extrajudicial foreclosure.