Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIONISIO MOJICA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 162333 2008-12-22	BIENVENIDO C. TEOCO v. METROPOLITAN BANK REYES, R.T., J.
While we agree with Metrobank that mortgages intended to secure future advancements are valid and legal contracts,[13] entering into such mortgage contracts does not necessarily put within its coverage all loan agreements that may be subsequently entered into by the parties. If Metrobank wishes to apply the mortgage contract in order to satisfy loan obligations not stated on the face of such contract, Metrobank should prove by a preponderance of evidence that such subsequent obligations are secured by said mortgage contract and not by any other form of security.
	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. 150197 2005-07-28	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. DON A. ALVIAR TINGA, J.
Petitioner maintains that the "blanket mortgage clause" or the "dragnet clause" in the real estate mortgage expressly covers not only the P250,000.00 under PN BD#75/C-252, but also the two other promissory notes included in the application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.[20] Thus, it claims that it acted within the terms of the mortgage contract when it filed its petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Petitioner relies on the cases of Lim Julian v. Lutero,[21] Tad-Y v. Philippine National Bank,[22] Quimson v. Philippine National Bank,[23] C & C Commercial v. Philippine National Bank,[24] Mojica v. Court of Appeals,[25] and China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[26] all of which upheld the validity of mortgage contracts securing future advancements.