Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mojica v. CA
Mojica v. CA
REM expressly stipulates that it serves as guaranty ... for the payment of the
loan ... of P20,000.00 and such other loans or other advances already obtained or
still to be obtained by the mortgagors as makers ...
It has long been settled by a long line of decisions that mortgages given to
secure future advancements are valid and legal contracts; that the amounts named
as consideration in said contract 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.
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 are paid. In fact, it has also been held that where the
annotation on the back of a certificate of title about a first mortgage states "that the
mortgage secured the payment of a certain amount of money plus interest plus
other obligations arising there under' there was no necessity for any notation of the
later loans on the mortgagors' title. It was incumbent upon any subsequent
mortgagee or encumbrances of the property in question to the books and records of
the bank, as first mortgagee, regarding the credit standing of the debtors.
The evidence on record shows that the amounts of P4,700.00 and P9,958.00 were
accepted by the bank on July 19 and August 11, 1980 as deposits for conventional
redemption after the property covered by real estate mortgage became the
acquired asset of the bank and priced at P85,000.00 and after petitioner had lost all
rights of a legal redemption because more than one year had already elapsed from
June 29, 1979, the date the certificate of sale was registered in the office of the
Registry of Deeds of Cavite. Indeed, the conventional redemption was subject to be
exercised up to March 3, 1982 and was extended up to April 19, 1982 for a fixed
amount of P85,000.00. The respondent bank even favored the petitioner by giving
them the first preference to repurchase the property but they failed to avail of this
opportunity, although the bank "is certainly disposed to release at anytime" the
deposits.
Property was auctioned on June 27, 1979. The only bidder was the respondent
bank which bid for P26,387.04. As the highest bidder, the respondent bank can
rightfully consolidate its title over the property.