This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that the Court has said in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court[24] that “a suit for the recovery of the deficiency after the foreclosure of a mortgage is in the nature of a mortgage action because its purpose is precisely to enforce the mortgage contract.” However, the CA erred in holding, upon the authority of Caltex Philippines, Inc., that the venue of Civil Case No. 03-450 must necessarily be Manila, the same venue as that of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. An examination of Caltex Philippines, Inc. reveals that the Court was thereby only interpreting the prescriptive period within which to bring the suit for the recovery of the deficiency after the foreclosure of the mortgage, and was not at all ruling therein on the venue of such suit or on the nature of such suit being either a real or a personal action. | |||||
|
2013-11-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In brief, Act No. 3135 recognizes the right of a creditor to foreclose a mortgage upon the mortgagor's failure to pay his/her obligation. In choosing this remedy, the creditor enforces his lien through the sale on foreclosure of the mortgaged property. The proceeds of the sale will then be applied to the satisfaction of the debt. In case of a deficiency, the mortgagee has the right to recover the deficiency resulting from the difference between the amount obtained in the sale at public auction, and the outstanding obligation at the time of the foreclosure proceedings.[20] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Given the foregoing perspective, EPCIB has clearly established its status as unpaid mortgagee-creditor entitled to foreclose the mortgage, a remedy provided by law[39] and the mortgage contract itself. On the other hand, petitioners can hardly claim a right, much less a clear and unmistakable one, which the intended foreclosure sale would violate if not enjoined. Surely, the foreclosure of mortgage does not by itself constitute a violation of the rights of a defaulting mortgagor. | |||||
|
2007-02-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Unless demand is proven, one cannot be held in default.[26] Petitioner's 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.[27] As we held in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals:[28] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner avers that the January 10, 2002 Order of the RTC denying the Demurrer to Evidence of respondent was interlocutory, and as such could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari.[30] The RTC did not commit a grave abuse of its discretion in issuing its January 10, 2002 Order. Petitioner maintains that respondent executed 67 separate loan obligations evidenced by 67 separate promissory notes, with different amounts and maturity dates. It avers that each of the loans, as evidenced by each of the promissory notes, may properly be the subject of a separate action; thus, each promissory note is an actionable document. Moreover, the real estate mortgage executed by the spouses secured an obligation only to a fixed amount of P7,000,000.00 which is covered by Promissory Note Nos. 1 to 31, whereas the loans secured by the spouses covered by the Promissory Note Nos. 32 to 67 for the total amount of P12,672,000.31 were not secured by the real estate mortgage. Petitioner insists that it was proper to file the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage only for respondent's loan account covered by the 36 promissory notes for the amount of P7,755,733.64. It was not barred from filing a separate action for the collection of the P12,672,000.31 against respondent in the RTC for the drawdowns as evidenced by Promissory Note Nos. 34 to 67. What should apply, petitioner asserts, is the ruling of this Court in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court[31] and Quiogue v. Bautista,[32] and not the ruling of this Court in Bachrach which involves only one promissory note. | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Under a mortgage to secure the payment of future advancements, the mere fact that the repayments on a particular day equal the amount of the mortgage will not discharge the mortgage before maturity so long as advancements may be demanded and are being received. (Luengo & Martinez v. Moreno, supra)[57] Moreover, the series of loan advancements herein cannot be likened to the credit line discussed in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[58] as petitioner posited in its reply[59] filed before this Court. In Caltex, unlike the instant case, the real estate mortgage executed did not contain a "dragnet" clause[60] that would subsume all past and future debts. The mortgage therein specifically secured only the loans extended prior to the mortgage. Thus, in the said case, the future debts were deemed as constituting a separate transaction from the past debts secured by the mortgage. | |||||