Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 184081 2009-06-19	GLOBAL HOLIDAY OWNERSHIP CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"all correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters, summonses, subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extra-judicial action shall be sent to the MORTGAGOR at 40-42 Aldeguer St., Iloilo City, or at the address that may hereafter be given in writing by the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE." Precisely, the purpose of the foregoing stipulation is to apprise respondent of any action which petitioner might take on the subject property, thus according him the opportunity to safeguard his rights. When petitioner failed to send the notice of foreclosure sale to respondent, he committed a contractual breach sufficient to render the foreclosure sale on November 23, 1981 null and void.[10] (Emphasis supplied) We do not see how a different outcome could have been expected in the present case which involves the same contractual provision as that in the abovementioned case - not to mention the same mortgagee. In cases subsequent to Wong, we sustained the same principle: that personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary, unless stipulated.[11]
	GR No. 152071 2009-05-08	PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES TINGA, J.
In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[37] the nature of a dragnet clause was explained, thus:Is one which is specifically phrased to subsume all debts of past and future origins. Such clauses are "carefully scrutinized and strictly construed." Mortgages of this character enable the parties to provide continuous dealings, the nature or extent of which may not be known or anticipated at the time, and they avoid the expense and inconvenience of executing a new security on each new transaction. A "dragnet clause" operates as a convenience and accommodation to the borrowers as it makes available additional funds without their having to execute additional security documents, thereby saving time, travel, loan closing costs, costs of extra legal services, recording fees, et cetera.[38]
	GR No. 152580 2008-06-26	CONSUELO METAL CORPORATION v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CARPIO, J.
Foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and the burden of evidence to rebut the same is on the party that seeks to challenge the proceedings.[22] CMC's challenge to the foreclosure proceedings has no merit. The notice of sale clearly specified that the auction sale will be held "at 10:00 o'clock in the morning or soon thereafter, but not later than 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon."[23] The Sheriff's Minutes of the Sale stated that "the foreclosure sale was actually opened at 10:00 A.M. and commenced at 2:30 P.M."[24] There was nothing irregular about the foreclosure proceedings.
	GR NO. 168736 2006-04-19	SPS. ADELINA S.CUYCO AND FELICIANO U. CUYCO v. SPS. RENATO CUYCO AND FILIPINA CUYCO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a general rule, a mortgage liability is usually limited to the amount mentioned in the contract.[31] 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. This stipulation is valid and binding between the parties and is known in American Jurisprudence as the "blanket mortgage clause," also known as a "dragnet clause." [32]