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.