SPS. RABAT VS. PNB, GR NO. 158755, 18 JUNE 2012

SPS. RABAT VS. PNB,

GR NO. 158755, 18 JUNE 2012

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

FACTS

In 1980, the spouses Francisco and Merced Rabat (spouses Rabat) was granted a medium-term loan by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the amount of P4M to mature three years from the date of implementation. Subsequently, the spouses Rabat signed a Credit Agreement and executed a Real Estate Mortgage over 12 parcels of land which stipulated that the loan would be subject to interest at the rate of 17% per annum, plus the appropriate service charge and penalty charge of 3% per annum on any amount remaining unpaid or not renewed when due. A few months later, the spouses Rabat executed another document denominated as “Amendment to the Credit Agreement” purposely to increase the interest rate from 17% to 21% per annum, inclusive of service charge and a penalty charge of 3% per annum to be imposed on any amount remaining unpaid or not renewed when due. They also executed another Real Estate Mortgage over 9 parcels of land as additional security for their medium-term loan of P4 M. The several availments of the loan accommodation on various dates by the spouses Rabat reached the aggregate amount of P3,517,380, as evidenced by several promissory notes.

The spouses RABATs failed to pay their outstanding balance on due date. Thus, the PNB filed a petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by the spouses Rabat. After due notice and publication, the mortgaged parcels of land were sold at a public auction held on February 1987 and April 1987. The PNB was the lone and highest bidder with a bid of P3,874,800.

As the proceeds of the public auction were not enough to satisfy the entire obligation of the spouses Rabat, the PNB sent demand letters. Upon failure of the spouses Rabat to comply with the demand to settle their remaining outstanding obligation which then stood at P14,745,398.25, including interest, penalties and other charges, PNB eventually filed a complaint for a sum of money before a Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not PNB was entitled to recover any deficiency from the spouses Rabat?

RULING

Yes.

The court held that Act No. 3135, which governs the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, while silent as to the mortgagee’s right to recover, does not, on the other hand, prohibit recovery of deficiency. Accordingly, it has been held that a deficiency claim arising from the extrajudicial foreclosure is allowed.

Here, the court held that if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to cover the debt in an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor. For when the legislature intends to deny the right of a creditor to sue for any deficiency resulting from foreclosure of security given to guarantee an obligation it expressly provides as in the case of pledges and in chattel mortgages of a thing sold on installment basis. There should be no question that PNB was legally entitled to recover the penalty charge of 3% per annum and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due. The documents relating to the loan and the real estate mortgage showed that the spouses Rabat had expressly conformed to such additional liabilities; hence, they could not now insist otherwise.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459