Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to review and set
aside the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 25242, which reversed the Decision2 of Branch
59 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil
Case No. M-028; the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new
one is hereby entered DISMISSING the
complaint of the spouses Osmundo and
Angelina Canlas. On the counterclaim of
defendant Asian Savings Bank, the plaintiffs
Canlas spouses are hereby ordered to pay the
defendant Asian Savings Bank the amount of
P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages,
plus P15,000.00 as and for attorney's fees.
With costs against appellees.
SO ORDERED.3
The facts that matter:
Sometime in August, 1982, the petitioner, Osmundo S.
Canlas, and private respondent, Vicente Maosca,
decided to venture in business and to raise the capital
needed therefor. The former then executed a Special
Power of Attorney authorizing the latter to mortgage
two parcels of land situated in San Dionisio, (BF
Homes) Paranaque, Metro Manila, each lot with semiconcrete residential house existing thereon, and
respectively covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
54366 in his (Osmundo's) name and Transfer Certificate
of Title No. S-78498 in the name of his wife Angelina
Canlas.
Subsequently, Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell the said
parcels of land to Vicente Maosca, for and in
consideration of P850,000.00, P500,000.00 of which
V
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING
RESPONDENT ASB MORAL DAMAGES.11
The Petition is impressed with merit.
Art. 1173 of the Civil Code, provides:
xxx
xxx
Q:
According to you, the basis for your having
recommended for the approval of MANASCO's (sic) loan
particularly that one involving the property of plaintiff in this
case, the spouses OSMUNDO CANLAS and ANGELINA CANLAS,
the basis for such approval was that according to you all the
signatures and other things taken into account matches with
Among others?
A:
We have to accept the signature on the basis of the
other signatures given to us it being a public instrument.
ATTY. CARLOS:
You mean to say the criteria of ascertaining the identity of the
mortgagor does not depend so much on the signature on the
residence certificate they have presented.
A:
xxx
xxx
A:
We accepted the signature on the basis of the
mortgage in favor of ATTY. MAGNO duly notarized which I have
been reiterrting (sic) entitled to full faith considering that it is
a public instrument.
ATTY. CARLOS:
What other requirement did you take into account in
ascertaining the identification of the parties particularly the
mortgagor in this case.
A:
Residence Certificate.
Q:
A:
We requested for others but they could not produce,
and because they presented to us the Residence Certificate
which matches on the signature on the Residence Certificate
in favor of Atty. Magno.14
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
QUESTION:
Now could you please describe out the
lunch conference at the Metro Club in Makati?
ANSWER:
Mr. Mangubat, Mr. Maosca and I did not
discuss with respect to the loan application and discuss
primarily his business.
xxx
xxx
xxx
QUESTION:
So, what is the main topic of your
discussion during the meeting?
ANSWER:
The main topic war then, about his
business although, Mr. Leonardo Rey, who actually
turned out as Mr. Canlas, supplier of Mr. Maosca.
QUESTION:
I see . . . other than the business of Mr.
Maosca, were there any other topic discussed?
ANSWER:
QUESTION:
ANSWER:
YES.
And what was the topic:
General Economy then.
xxx
xxx
x x x22
On
29
June
paid
the
of
the loan proceeds from PNB, and was not aware of the
property
of
petitioners.
the
rendered
and
of
court
2001
favor
trial
September
court
Decision in
the
13
its
2001,
on
The
conjugal
trial
partnership
during
their
the
motion
on
October
2001,
PNBs
lay
petitioners
from Ros.
motion
for
execution
pending
appeal
introduced
should
PNB
prevail
on
appeal.
The Appellate Courts Ruling
On 17 October 2005, the appellate court
improper
for
the
trial
court
to
rely
solely
not
give
it
for
P115,000.00 on
by
not
her
doubt
23
October
that Aguete,
signature,
as
consented
husband
cannot
alienate
or
encumber
any
allows Aguete to
question Rosencumbrance
of
the
and
rule
her
consent
documents
disavowed
by Aguete are
documents.
Every
instrument
duly
of
acknowledgment
being prima
19
by
PNB
the
was
mere
correct
denial
of
the
alleged
when
it
stated
that
could
authoritatively
declare
sell
of
garlic
her
the
debt
is
chargeable
to
the
conjugal
partnership.
themselves
admitted
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 152071
May 8, 2009
line
in
the
amount
of P300,000.00,
of
which
Appeals
extrajudicial
on
CA-G.R.
CV
No.
59931.
foreclosure
The
of
Court
the
of
mortgage
Certificates of Titles (TCT) No. N-68661, N-68662, N68663, N-68664, N-68665 and N-68666, all issued by
the
real
estate
mortgage
or
credit
export
advance
with
petitioner
consideration
for
its
drawings
in
the
amounts
discrepancies.
Kwang
Ju
Bank,
1)
EBP-PHO-87-1121
(US$4,585.97
21.212) = P119,165.06
2)
EBP-PHO-87-1095
(US$
5,739.76
21.212) = 151,580.97
3) BDS-001-87 = 61,777.78
4) BDS-030/86 A = 123,555.55
5) BDS-PC-002-/87 = 55,822.91
6) BDS-005/87 = 61,323.33
P573,225.60[14]
x
x
fees
and
sheriff
fees,
was
pegged
Upon learning about the Korean importers nonpayment, respondent sent petitioner a letter dated 27
July 1987, informing the latter that respondent had
brought the matter before the Korea Trade Court and
that it was ready to liquidate its past due account with
petitioner. Respondent sent another letter dated 08
September 1987, reiterating the same assurance. In a
[13]
export
Petitioner
payment
of
the
demanded
peso
from
equivalent
respondent
of
the
and
export
documents
were
the
evidence
that
[22]
WHEREFORE, in Case No. 1587A, the court hereby rules that the
foreclosure of mortgage for the old and
new obligations of the plaintiff Excelsa
Industries Corp., which has remained
unpaid up to the time of foreclosure by
defendant Producers Bank of the
Philippines was valid, legal and in order;
In Case No. 787-A, the court hereby
orders for the issuance of a writ of
possession in favor of Producers Bank of
the Philippines after the properties of
Excelsa Industries Corp., which were
foreclosed and consolidated in the name
of Producers Bank of the Philippines
under TCT No. 169031, 169032, 169033,
169034 and 169035 of the Register of
Deeds of Marikina.
SO ORDERED.[20]
currency
and
remitting
the
same
to
RTC
denied
reconsideration.[25] Thus,
respondents
respondent
motion
elevated
for
the
that
the
drafts
and
accompanying
in
the
(c) Costs.
SO ORDERED.[26]
be
returned
if
no
explanation
regarding
the
invalidated
the
Court
of
Appeals
same
Appeals
to
Philippine
currency
for
remittance
to
also
overturned
guilty
of
the
RTCs
finding
respondent was
that
estoppel by laches
in
was
liable
for
the
discrepancies
in
the
export
Furthermore,
the
Court
of
Appeals
found
rule.[30]
of its sight drafts, the Court held that the drawer can
explained, thus:
not
accepted.
respondent
are
The
two
undertakings
similarly-worded
and
signed
by
contained
Thus,
notwithstanding
petitioners
alleged
unpaid
drafts,
respondent
also
had
due
and
that
petitioner
had
failed
to
furnish
respondent
not limit the amount for which the mortgage may stand
be gathered.[36]
nature
of
dragnet
clause
explained, thus:
was
does
not
oblige
petitioner
to
ensure
that
Plaintiff
is
estopped
from
questioning the foreclosure. The plaintiff
is guilty of laches and cannot at this
point in time question the foreclosure of
the subject properties. Defendant bank
made demands against the plaintiff for
the payment of plaintiffs outstanding
loans and advances with the defendant
as early as July 1997. Plaintiff
acknowledged such outstanding loans
and advances to the defendant bank
and committed to liquidate the same.
For failure of the plaintiff to pay its
obligations on maturity, defendant bank
foreclosed the mortgage on subject
properties on January 5, 1988 the
certificate of sale was annotated on
March 24, 1988 and there being no
redemption made by the plaintiff, title to
said properties were consolidated in the
name of defendant in July 1989.
Undeniably, subject foreclosure was
done in accordance with the prescribed
rules as may be borne out by the
exhibits submitted to this Court which
are Exhibit 33, a notice of extrajudicial
sale executed by the Sheriff of Antipolo,
Exhibit
34
certificate
posting
of
extrajudicial sale, Exhibit 35 return card
evidencing receipt by plaintiff of the
notice of extrajudicial sale and Exhibit
21 affidavit of publication.
The Court adopts and approves the aforequoted
findings by the RTC, the same being fully supported by
the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE the instant petition for review on
certiorari is GRANTED and the decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59931 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Regional
Trial Court Branch 73, Antipolo, Rizal in Civil Case No.
1587-A and LR Case No. 90-787 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
that he/it is the absolute owner free from all liens and
incumbrances. . . .4
On 22 October 1976, Don Alviar executed another
promissory note, PN BD#76/C-345 for P2,640,000.00,
secured by D/A SFDX #129, signifying that the loan
was secured by a "hold-out" on the mortgagors foreign
currency savings account with the bank under Account
No. 129, and that the mortgagors passbook is to be
surrendered to the bank until the amount secured by
the "hold-out" is settled.5
On 27 December 1976, respondent spouses executed
for Donalco Trading, Inc., of which the husband and
wife were President and Chairman of the Board and
Vice President,6 respectively, PN BD#76/C-430
coveringP545,000.000. As provided in the note, the
loan is secured by "Clean-Phase out TOD CA 3923,"
which means that the temporary overdraft incurred by
Donalco Trading, Inc. with petitioner is to be converted
into an ordinary loan in compliance with a Central Bank
circular directing the discontinuance of overdrafts.7
On 16 March 1977, petitioner wrote Donalco Trading,
Inc., informing the latter of its approval of a straight
loan ofP545,000.00, the proceeds of which shall be
used to liquidate the outstanding loan of P545,000.00
TOD. The letter likewise mentioned that the securities
for the loan were the deed of assignment on two
promissory notes executed by Bancom Realty
Corporation with Deed of Guarantee in favor of A.U.
Valencia and Co. and the chattel mortgage on various
heavy and transportation equipment.8
On 06 March 1979, respondents paid
petitioner P2,000,000.00, to be applied to the
obligations of G.B. Alviar Realty and Development, Inc.
and for the release of the real estate mortgage for
the P450,000.00 loan covering the two (2) lots located
at Vam Buren and Madison Streets, North Greenhills,
San Juan, Metro Manila. The payment was
acknowledged by petitioner who accordingly released
the mortgage over the two properties.9
On 15 January 1980, petitioner moved for the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage on the
property covered by TCT No. 438157. Per petitioners
computation, respondents had the total obligation
of P1,608,256.68, covering the three (3) promissory
notes, to wit: PN BD#75/C-252 for P250,000.00, PN
BD#76/C-345 for P382,680.83, and PN BD#76/C-340
for P545,000.00, plus assessed past due interests and
penalty charges. The public auction sale of the
mortgaged property was set on 15 January 1980.10
Respondents filed a complaint for damages with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction with the RTC of Pasig,11 claiming that they
SO ORDERED.
REYES, J.:
Issue
The rise and fall of this recourse is dependent on the
resolution of the issue who between New Dagupan and
PCSO has a better right to the property in question.
Our Ruling
PCSO is undeterred by the denial of its appeal to the CA
and now seeks to convince this Court that it has a
superior right over the subject property. However,
PCSOs resolve fails to move this Court and the
ineluctability of the denial of this petition is owing to
the following:
a. At the time of PCSOs registration of its
mortgage lien on May 20, 1992, the subject
mortgage had already been discharged by
Galangs full payment of P450,000.00, the
amount specified in the Deed of Undertaking
with First Real Estate Mortgage;
b. There is nothing in the Deed of Undertaking
with First Real Estate Mortgage that would
indicate that it is a continuing security or that
there is an intent to secure Galangs future
debts;
c. Assuming the contrary, New Dagupan is not
bound by PCSOs mortgage lien and was a
purchaser in good faith and for value; and
d. While the subject mortgage predated the
sale of the subject property to New Dagupan,
the absence of any evidence that the latter had
knowledge of PCSOs mortgage lien at the time
of the sale and its prior registration of an
adverse claim created a preference in its favor.
I
As a general rule, a mortgage liability is usually limited
to the amount mentioned in the contract. However, the
amounts named as consideration in a contract of
mortgage do not limit the amount for which the
mortgage may stand as security if from the four
corners of the instrument the intent to secure future
and other indebtedness can be gathered.26
Alternatively, while a real estate mortgage may
exceptionally secure future loans or advancements,
these future debts must be specifically described in the
mortgage contract. An obligation is not secured by a
mortgage unless it comes fairly within the terms of the
mortgage contract.27
xxxx
The PRINCIPAL shall settle or pay his/her account of
FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P450,000.00) PESOS with the MORTGAGEE, provided
that the said balance shall bear interest thereon at the
rate of 14% per annum;
To secure the faithful compliance and as security to the
obligation of the PRINCIPAL stated in the next
preceding paragraph hereof, the MORTGAGOR hereby
convey unto and in favor of the MORTGAGEE, its
successor and assigns by way of its first real estate
mortgage, a parcel/s of land together with all the
improvements now or hereafter existing thereon,
located at BOQUIG, DAGUPAN CITY, covered by TCT No.
52135, of the Register of Deeds of DAGUPAN CITY, and
more particularly described as follows:32
Respondent Carmelo H. Tuble, who served as the vicepresident of petitioner Asiatrust Development Bank,
availed himself of the car incentive plan and loan
privileges offered by the bank. He was also entitled to
the banks Senior Managers Deferred Incentive Plan
(DIP).
Respondent acquired a Nissan Vanette through the
companys car incentive plan. The arrangement was
made to appear as a lease agreement requiring only
the payment of monthly rentals. Accordingly, the lease
would be terminated in case of the employees
resignation or retirement prior to full payment of the
price.
As regards the loan privileges, Tuble obtained three
separate loans. The first, a real estate loan evidenced
by the 18 January 1993 Promissory Note No. 01423 with
maturity date of 1 January 1999, was secured by a
mortgage over his property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T 145794. No interest on this
loan was indicated.
The second was a consumption loan, evidenced by the
10 January 1994 Promissory Note No. 01434 with the
maturity date of 31 January 1995 and interest at 18%
per annum. Aside from the said indebtedness, Tuble
allegedly obtained a salary loan, his third loan.
On 30 March 1995, he resigned. Subsequently, he was
given the option to either return the vehicle without
any further obligation or retain the unit and pay its
remaining book value.