Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 153810 2015-08-12	WINSTON R. GARCIA v. ANGELITA TOLENTINO JARDELEZA, J.
We note, however, our ruling in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[57] where we held: At the outset, the Court's attention is drawn to the fact that since the filing ofthis suit before the trial court, none of the substantial issues have been resolved. To avoid and gloss over the issues raised by the parties, as what the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals did, would unduly prolong this litigation involving a rather simple case of foreclosure of mortgage. Undoubtedly, this will run counter to the avowed purpose of the rules, i.e., to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. The Court, therefore, feels that the central issues of the case, xxx, should now be settled specially as they involved pure questions of law. Furthermore, the pleadings of the respective parties on file have amply ventilated their various positions and arguments on the matter necessitating prompt adjudication.
	GR No. 157163 2014-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances averred in the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-26468, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the respondents was improper. They had admittedly constituted the real estate and chattel mortgages to secure the performance of their loan obligation to the petitioner, and, as such, they were fully aware of the consequences on their rights in the properties given as collaterals should the loan secured be unpaid. The foreclosure of the mortgages would be the remedy provided by law for the mortgagee to exact payment.[30] In fact, they did not dispute the petitioner's allegations that they had not fully paid their obligation, and that Civil Case No. CEB-26468 was precisely brought by them in order to stave off the impending foreclosure of the mortgages based on their claim that they had been compelled to sign pre-printed standard bank loan forms and mortgage agreements.
	GR No. 152236 2010-07-28	RPRP VENTURES MANAGEMENT v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ PERALTA, J.
Petitioner highly disputes the CA's citing of the case of China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[29] claiming it to be inapplicable in the present case. According to petitioner, the facts obtaining in the China Bank case are different from the present case. It expounded that in the China Bank case, there was an admission from the mortgagors that they were unable to settle to the fullest their obligation which necessitated the extrajudicial foreclosure. However, as contended by the petitioner, they contested the amount due based on the amortization schedule because it included charges on penalties on interest which was not stipulated in the promissory note; hence, there was no admission on its part that it was unable to settle its obligation. As such, it claims that it was not yet on default when the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property took place.
	GR No. 163117 2009-12-18	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. MARIA LETICIA FERNANDEZ CARPIO, J.
Foreclosure is valid where the debtor is in default in the payment of an obligation.[23] The essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment.[24] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness.[25] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, 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 obligation.[26]
	GR No. 164968 2009-07-03	GLORIA OCAMPO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
The essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default of payment.[54] In the case before Us, the loan amount was established. It was also admitted that 80% was guaranteed by Quedancor, while the remaining 20%, by the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. Finally, the records show that Ocampo and Tan obtained the loan from the Land Bank and it was the latter which released the loan proceeds.
	GR NO. 170785 2007-10-19	REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. VIVENCIO T. SARMIENTO TINGA, J.
It is well settled that mortgages given to secure future advancements or loans are valid and legal contracts, and that the amounts named as consideration in said contracts 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.[20] A mortgage given to secure advancements is a continuing security and is not discharged by repayment of the amount named in the mortgage, until the full amount of the advancements is paid.[21]
	GR NO. 156447 2005-04-26	JUAN AGAS v. CARIDAD SABICO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed, however, that there is no conclusive test to determine whether a deed absolute on its face is really a simple loan accommodation secured by a mortgage. In fact, it is often a question difficult to resolve and is frequently made to depend on the surrounding circumstances of each case. When in doubt, courts are generally inclined to construe a transaction purporting to be a sale as an equitable mortgage, which involves a lesser transmission of rights and interests over the property in controversy.[32] Thus, if both parties offer a conflicting interpretation of a contract or several contracts, then judicial determination of the intention of the parties' intention is inevitable.[33]
	GR No. 140058 2002-08-01	MABAYO FARMS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[11] Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[12] It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.[13] Thus, a person who is not a party in the main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695. He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[14] Second, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it observed that petitioner should have impleaded private respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. 6695 pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[15]
	GR No. 113627 2001-02-06	CORAZON C. SHIN v. CA PARDO, J.
"A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts."[12] Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right.[13]