You are on page 1of 2

Mortel vs Brundige

G.R. No. 190236. June 15, 2015.

Facts: Mortel obtained a loan of P185,000.00 for Brundige. He then executed a real estate mortgage on a one-unit apartment
at Olongapo City to secure the loan. The agreement provided that Dennis will pay the loan within one year, while Michael will
live on the apartment rent-free for one year. Michael and his family lived on the apartment for six months only due to flooding
and absence of water supply. On the other hand, Dennis failed to pay the loan after its maturity. Dennis forced open the
apartment and removed Michael’s belongings. Efforts to resolve the dispute at the barangay failed. Michael then filed a
complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage.

During the pre-trial, Dennis admitted the existence of the real estate mortgage; Michael’s demand letter, the Certificate
to File Action; and the fact that his obligation to Michael was unpaid. Michael then filed a motion for summary judgment, averring
that since Dennis already already admitted the execution of a real estate mortgage and his default in the payment of his loan.

Dennis appealed to the CA, but the latter affirmed the RTC ruling. Dennis sought recourse with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s summary judgment.

Ruling: Based on these clear admissions of fact as well as the respondent’s testimony and documentary evidence, we agree
that the action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage was ripe for summary judgment as there was no longer any genuine issue of
fact that would require a trial for the presentation of evidence.

It is a settled rule that when the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation, the mortgagee has the right to
foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the
Marilag vs Martinez

G.R. No. 201892. July 22, 2015.

Facts: Rafael Martinez, respondent's father, obtained from petitioner a loan in the amount of P160, 000.00, interest of 5%,
payable within 6 months. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage covered by TCT No. T-208400. Rafael failed to settle
his obligation prompting petitioner to file a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage before the RTC of Imus,

Rafael failed to file his answer and, upon petitioner's motion, was declared in default. Accordingly, it ordered Rafael
to pay petitioner the amount of P229,200.00, consisting of the principal of P160,000.00 and accrued interest of P59,200.00
from July 30, 1992 to September 30, 1995.

Prior to Rafael's notice of the above decision, respondent agreed to pay Rafael's obligation to petitioner. After making
a total payment of P400,000.00, he executed a promissory note dated February 20, 1998 (subject PN), binding himself to pay on
or before March 31, 1998 the amount of P289,000.00,. After learning of the January 30, 1998 Decision, respondent refused to
pay the amount covered by the subject PN despite demands, prompting petitioner to file a complaint for sum of money and
damages before the court a quo.

The court a quo denied recovery on the subject PN. CA recalled and set aside the court a quo's November 3, 2003 and
January 14, 2004 Orders, and reinstated the August 28, 2003 Decision. It held that the doctrine of res judicata finds application
in the instant case.

Issue: The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in upholding the
dismissal of the collection case.

Ruling: In the present case, records show that petitioner, as creditor-mortgagee, instituted an action for judicial foreclosure
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 68 of the Rules of Court in order to recover on Rafael’s debt. In light of the foregoing discussion,
the availment of such remedy thus bars recourse to the subsequent filing of a personal action for collection of the same debt, in
this case, under the principle of litis pendentia, considering that the foreclosure case only remains pending as it was not shown
to have attained finality.