This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-06-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Every court should remember that an injunction should not be granted lightly or precipitately because it is a limitation upon the freedom of the defendant's action. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it,[50] for no power exists whose exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation, or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction.[51] | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The protection afforded to PNB as a mortgagee in good faith refers to the right to have its mortgage lien carried over and annotated on the new certificate of title issued to Spouses Marañon[35] as so adjudged by the RTC. Thereafter, to enforce such lien thru foreclosure proceedings in case of non-payment of the secured debt,[36] as PNB did so pursue. The principle, however, is not the singular rule that governs real estate mortgages and foreclosures attended by fraudulent transfers to the mortgagor. | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that SBI and MFII are correct in claiming their supposed right, it nonetheless disintegrates in the face of the ten promissory notes in the total amount of P218,540,648.00, exclusive of interest and penalties, issued by SBI in favor of CBC on March 1, 1999 which until now remain unpaid despite the maturity of the said notes on March 1, 2004 and CBC's repeated demands for payment.[37] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of nonpayment of mortgage indebtedness.[38] As this Court held in Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. OJ-Mark Trading, Inc.[39]: Where the parties stipulated in their credit agreements, mortgage contracts and promissory notes that the mortgagee is authorized to foreclose the mortgaged properties in case of default by the mortgagors, the mortgagee has a clear right to foreclosure in case of default, making the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction improper. x x x. (Citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The foreclosure of a mortgage is but a necessary consequence of the non-payment of an obligation secured by the mortgage. Where the parties have stipulated in their agreement, mortgage contract and promissory note that the mortgagee is authorized to foreclose the mortgage upon the mortgagor's default, the mortgagee has a clear right to the foreclosure in case of the mortgagor's default. Thereby, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the mortgagor will be improper.[25] Mindful that an injunction would be a limitation upon the freedom of action of Metrobank, the RTC justifiably refused to grant the petitioners' application for the writ of preliminary injunction. We underscore that the writ could be granted only if the RTC was fully satisfied that the law permitted it and the emergency demanded it.[26] That, needless to state, was not true herein. | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of the defendant's action and should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it;[37] no power exists whose exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation, or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction.[38] | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against that right must be shown. A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action.[33] When the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.[34] | |||||
|
2012-03-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the respondents admit that to secure the loan obligations of Castalloy, Alinsu and Allied constituted a real estate mortgage on their properties in favor of PNB. The respondents also do not dispute that they were unable to fully settle their loan obligation to the mortgagee-bank. There is an unpaid obligation to PNB, even granting that we disregard the disputed promissory notes dated November 27, 2006 and January 29, 2007, or consider the variance in the parties' respective formula for the loan's computation. This failure to pay has given PNB, as the mortgagee, the clear right to foreclose the mortgage constituted to secure the loan. Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of mortgage indebtedness. 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.[15] Availment of said remedy cannot be deemed violative of the mortgagors' right over the mortgaged properties. The respondents, as mortgagors, should be mindful of the effects and implications of a mortgage on their rights over the properties given as collaterals, especially when the loan secured thereby remains unpaid. In China Banking Corporation v. CA,[16] where the lower court also issued an order to enjoin a foreclosure sale, we explained: On the last issue, we find that the issuance of the writ of injunction by the trial court unjustified. A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. But 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. In the case at bench, we fail to see any reason why the foreclosure of the mortgages should be enjoined. On the face of the clear admission by private respondents that they were unable to settle their obligations which were secured by the mortgages, petitioners have a clear right to foreclose the mortgages which is a remedy provided by law.[17] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted) | |||||
|
2012-03-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The injury being feared by the herein respondents is not of such nature. Ultimately, the amount to which the mortgagee-bank shall be entitled will be determined by the disposition of the trial court in the main issue of the case. We have explained in Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. OJ-Mark Trading, Inc.[21] that all is not lost for defaulting mortgagors whose properties were foreclosed by creditors-mortgagees. The respondents will not be deprived outrightly of their property, given the right of redemption granted to them under the law. Moreover, in extrajudicial foreclosures, mortgagors have the right to receive any surplus in the selling price. Thus, if the mortgagee is retaining more of the proceeds of the sale than he is entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of the sale but will give the mortgagor a cause of action to recover such surplus.[22] | |||||