CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE

RULE 68 – Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

Ramirez v Ramirez mortgaged two parcels of land located at Whether Manila Bank Yes. Personal notice to the mortgagor
Manila Bank Bayanbayanan, Marikina City in favor of respondent is required to send in extrajudicial foreclosure
G.R. No. 198800 The Manila Banking Corporation to secure his personal notice to The CA erred in ruling that absence of notice of proceedings is not necessary
December 11, P265,000 loan. Ramirez on the extrajudicial foreclosure sale to Ramirez as required by because Section 31 of Act No.
2013 extrajudicial paragraph N of the real estate mortgage will not 3135 only requires the posting of
- Personal The real estate mortgage provides that all foreclosure invalidate the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. the notice of sale in three public
notice of the correspondence relative to the mortgage, including proceedings. places and the publication of that
demand letters, summons, subpoenas or notifications The SC ruled that when respondent failed to send the
foreclosure notice in a newspaper of general
notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale to Ramirez, it
proceedings of any judicial or extrajudicial actions, shall be sent to circulation, unless the parties
petitioner Ramirez at his given address. committed a contractual breach of said paragraph N
stipulate.
- ”unless the sufficient to render the extrajudicial foreclosure sale
parties Ramirez failed to pay his loan despite demands, null and void.
stipulate” prompting Manila Bank to file for extrajudicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage. During the ”Unless the parties stipulate”
auction sale, Manila Bank was the only bidder for the In this case, the parties stipulated in paragraph N of the
mortgaged properties. Thereafter, a certificate of sale real estate mortgage that all correspondence relative to
was issued in its favor as the highest bidder. the mortgage including notifications of extrajudicial
actions shall be sent to mortgagor Ramirez at his given
Ramirez sued Manila Bank for annulment of sale and address. Manila Bank had no choice but to comply with
prayed that the certificate of sale be annulled on the this contractual provision it has entered into with
ground, among others, that the real estate mortgage Ramirez. The contract is the law between them. Hence,
was violated for he was not notified of the foreclosure we cannot agree with the bank that paragraph N of the
and auction sale. real estate mortgage does not impose an additional
obligation upon it to provide personal notice of the
Manila Bank, on the other hand, claimed that the extrajudicial foreclosure sale to the mortgagor Ramirez.
foreclosure proceedings were valid. It alleged that as
provided in Section 3 of Act No. 3135, no personal Ramirez’s petition was granted; CA’s decision was
notice to the mortgagor is required in case of a reversed and set aside. The extrajudicial foreclosure
foreclosure sale. The bank claims that paragraph N of proceedings and auction sale, and the Certificate of Sale
the real estate mortgage does not impose an over the mortgaged properties issued to Manila Bank
additional obligation to it to provide personal notice to were declared null and void.
the mortgagor Ramirez.

Trial Court
The trial court ruled that the extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings were null and void and the certificate of
sale is invalid.

CA
The CA reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled
that absence of personal notice of foreclosure to
Ramirez as required by paragraph N of the real estate
mortgage is not a ground to set aside the foreclosure
sale.
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE

Thus, Ramirez filed a petition for review on certiorari

under Rule 45 with SC.

Sps. Marquez v In June 1998, petitioner Anita J. Marquez (Anita) Whether the CA erred Yes. The purchaser in an extra-judicial
Sps. Alindog extended a loan in the amount of P500,000.00 to a in finding no grave foreclosure sale is entitled to the
G.R. No. 184045 certain Benjamin Gutierrez (Gutierrez). As security abuse of discretion on The procedure for extrajudicial foreclosure of real possession of the property and
January 22, therefor, Gutierrez executed a Deed of Real Estate the part of the RTC estate mortgage is governed by Act No. 3135, as can demand that he be placed in
2014 Mortgage dated June 16, 1998 over a parcel of land when it issued the amended. The purchaser at the public auction sale of an possession of the same either
- Ministerial located in Tagaytay City registered in his name. The injunctive writ which extrajudicially foreclosed real property may seek during (with bond) or after the
duty of the mortgage was duly annotated on the dorsal portion of enjoined Sps. Marquez possession thereof in accordance with Section 7 of Act expiration (without bond) of the
court to issue TCT No. T-13443, which Sps. Marquez had verified as from taking possession No. 3135: redemption period therefor.
writ of clean prior to the mortgage. of the subject
SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of A writ of possession duly applied
possession property.
Since Gutierrez defaulted in the payment of his loan this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of for by said purchaser should issue
- “third party obligation, Anita sought the extra-judicial foreclosure First Instance of the province or place where the as a matter of course, and thus,
holding of the subject property. At the public auction sale, property or any part thereof is situated, to give merely constitutes a ministerial
adverse title Anita emerged as the highest bidder. him possession thereof during the redemption duty on the part of the court.
or right” period, furnishing bond…and the court shall,
Gutierrez failed to redeem the property within the upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of
prescribed period. The title was therefore possession issue… Ministerial act, defined
consolidated under the Sps. Marquez’s name A purely ministerial act or duty is
(November 5, 2001), but it bore another annotation of The law expressly authorizes the purchaser to petition one which an officer or tribunal
adverse claim (March 2, 2000) in the names of Sps. for a writ of possession during the redemption period by performs in a given state of facts,
Alindog made only after the subject property’s filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in in a prescribed manner, in
mortgage to Sps. Marquez. the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding obedience to the mandate of a
in the case of property with Torrens title; and upon the legal authority, without regard to
Subsequently, Sps. Alindog filed a civil case for filing of such motion and the approval of the or the exercise of his own
annulment of real estate mortgage and certificate of corresponding bond, the law also in express terms judgment upon the propriety or
sale with prayer for damages against Sps. Marquez. directs the court to issue the order for a writ of impropriety of the act done.
They alleged that they purchased the subject property possession. Under the legal provisions above copied, the
from Gutierrez way back in September 1989, but were order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of Discretionary act, defined
unable to secure a certificate of title in their names course upon the filing of the proper motion and the If the law imposes a duty upon a
because one Agripina Gonzales had deceived them in approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is public officer and gives him the
that they were assured that the said certificate was left to the court. right to decide how or when the
already being processed when such was not the case. duty shall be performed, such
In this case, it is clear that the issuance of a writ of duty is discretionary and not
Sps. Marquez disputed Sps. Alindog’s ownership over possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, who had already ministerial.
the subject property, arguing that the purported sale consolidated their title over the extra-judicially
in the latter’s favor was never registered and foreclosed property, is merely ministerial in nature.
therefore, not binding upon them. Further, they
insisted that their certificate of title was already Exception
indefeasible, and cannot be attacked collaterally. Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (Rules)
pertinently provides that the possession of the
Meanwhile, on March 16, 2005, Anita filed an ex-parte mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before an extra-judicial foreclosure unless a third party is
the RTC. actually holding the property by adverse title or right.

RTC “third party holding adverse title or right”

RTC granted Anita’s ex-parte petition and thereby The phrase ‘a third party who is actually holding the
directed the issuance of a writ of possession in her property adversely to the judgment obligor’
favor. Sps. Alindog sought the issuance of a temporary contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the
restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary property by adverse title or right, such as that of a co-
injunction with prayer for damages. RTC thereafter owner, tenant or usufructuary. The co-owner,
issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Sps. agricultural tenant, and usufructuary possess the
Marquez from taking possession of the subject property in their own right, and they are not merely the
property until after the controversy has been fully successor or transferee of the right of possession of
resolved on the merits. Apparently, Sheriff’s Return another co-owner or the owner of the property.
shows that the writ of possession has been Notably, the property should not only be possessed by a
implemented, turning over the possession of the third party, but also held by the third party adversely to
subject property to Sps. Marquez. Thus, the judgment obligor. The third person must therefore
notwithstanding the consolidation of Sps. Marquez’s claim a right superior to that of the original mortgagor.
title over the subject property, the RTC granted Sps.
Alindog’s prayer for injunctive relief. Here, Sps. Alindog hinged their claim over the subject
property on their purported purchase of the same from
CA its previous owner, i.e., Sps. Gutierrez. Accordingly, it
CA ruled that RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion cannot be seriously doubted that Sps. Alindog are only
in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against Sps. the latter’s (Sps. Gutierrez) successors-in-interest who
Marquez, and in enjoining them from taking do not have a right superior to them.
possession of the subject property despite the
consolidation of their title over the same. Petition was granted; CA’s resolution and RTC’s order
were reversed and set aside; writ of preliminary
Thus, Sps. Marquez filed a petition for certiorari before injunction nullified; writ of possession reinstated.
the SC.

Ardiente v In November 1979, Sps. Ardiente together with their Whether CA erred is No. It is settled that personal notice to
Provincial son and his wife, obtained a loan in the amount of reversing RTC’s the mortgagor in extra-judicial
Sheriff P100,000.00 from the Peninsula Development Bank. decision as regards Here, petitioner presented no evidence before the trial foreclosure proceedings is not
G.R. NO. 148448 To secure the payment of the loan, the Ardientes lack of compliance court to prove the absence of publication of the notice necessary, hence, not a ground to
August 17, 2004 executed in favor of the bank a Real Estate Mortgage with notice and despite the fact that private respondents, in their set aside the foreclosure sale.
over a parcel of land situated at Buenavista, Quezon publication Answer, squarely pleaded as a defense the foreclosure
- Lack of notice and 3 parcels of land situated at Guinayangan, sale and petitioner's receipt of the "notice of the sale The issue of lack of publication of
of extra- Quezon. Out of the proceeds of the loan, the which was published in a newspaper of general notice cannot be raised for the
judicial Ardientes purchased a mini bus costing P81,875.00. circulation." That the lack of publication of the notice of first time on appeal.
foreclosure foreclosure was never raised in issue by Sps. Ardiente
- Issue on non- After the bus was in operation for several months, it and that it is not within the issues framed by the parties
compliance met an accident, as result of which it sustained heavy in the trial court are then too obvious.
with required damages and rendered the Ardientes unable to meet
notice and their obligation to the bank. The Ardientes were later SC dismissed the petition
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
publication granted by the bank an additional loan of P46,000
not raised and the Real Estate Mortgage was amended. The
Ardientes still failed to settle the same.

The bank thus extra-judicially foreclosed the

mortgage and the parcels of land covered thereby
were sold at public auction to the bank which was the
highest bidder. The bank later notified the Ardientes
that they had 1 year to redeem the foreclosed
mortgage.

Two days before the period to redeem the foreclosed

mortgage expired, Sps. Ardiente filed before the RTC a
petition for Annulment of Auction Sale with
Preliminary Injunction and Damages based on the
following grounds:
1. That the bank violated the Real Estate
Mortgage and Amended Real Estate Mortgage;
and
2. The requisite of notifying the mortgagors of the
intended extra-judicial foreclosure sale was not
duly complied with.

The bank answered that Sps. Ardiente were duly

notified of the extra-judicial foreclosure and public
auction sale. There was sufficient notice and
publication.

RTC
RTC declared the extra-judicial foreclosure and the
sale of the mortgaged properties null and void, noting
the absence of documentary evidence showing strict
compliance with the statutory requirements on
publication of notice of extra-judicial foreclosure of
mortgage.

CA
CA reversed the decision of the trial court after finding
the argument of the defendant-appellants bank et al.
that the lack of required notice and publication of the
extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage was not averred
in the complaint, hence, cannot be the basis of an
adverse judgment.

Thus, the Petition for Review filed by Sps. Ardiente.

 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE

LZK Holdings v LZK Holdings obtained a P40,000,000.00 loan from Whether CA erred in No. The doctrine of res judicata by
Planters Bank Planters Bank, which was secured with a Real Estate sustaining RTC-San conclusiveness of judgment
G.R. No. 187973 Mortgage over its lot located in La Union. Fernando’s decision in The final judgment in G.R. No. 167998 was rendered by postulates that when a right or
January 20, the issuance of writ of the Court pursuant to its jurisdiction over the review of fact has been judicially tried and
2014 On September 21, 1998, the lot was sold at a public possession. decisions and rulings of the CA. It was a judgment on determined by a court of
- doctrine of resauction after Planters Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the merits of Planters Banks’s right to apply for and be competent jurisdiction, or when
judicata the real estate mortgage thereon due to LZK Holdings’ issued a writ of possession. Lastly, the parties in G.R. No. an opportunity for such trial has
failure to pay its loan. Planters Bank emerged as the 167998 are the same parties involved in the present been given, the judgment of the
- requisite of highest bidder. case. court, as long as it remains
hearing for the unreversed, should be conclusive
issuance of writ LZK Holdings filed before the RTC filed a complaint for Hence, LZK Holdings can no longer question Planter
upon the parties and those in
of possession annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure, and prayed Bank’s right to a writ of possession over the subject
privity with them.
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order property because the doctrine of conclusiveness of
(TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the judgment bars the relitigation of such particular issue.
consolidation of title over the lot by Planters Bank. On Whether hearing is still
December 27, 1999, Planters Bank filed an ex-parte required for the
Other matter’s discussed No hearing is required prior to the
motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. issuance of writ of
No hearing is required prior to the issuance of a writ of issuance of a writ of possession.
possession.
Three (3) days before the expiration of LZK Holdings’ possession. The proceeding in a petition for a
redemption period, the RTC-Makati issued a TRO, writ of possession is ex parte and
The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is summary in nature.
enjoining Planters Bank from consolidating its title
ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial
over the property. A writ of preliminary injunction
proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only
thereafter issued.
and without notice by the court to any person adverse
In the meantime, Planters Bank succeeded in of interest. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted
consolidating its ownership over the property. without giving the person against whom the relief is
However, the proceedings for its ex-parte motion for sought an opportunity to be heard.
the issuance of a writ of possession was suspended by
By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a
the RTC-San Fernando in view of the TRO and writ of
writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding. It is a
preliminary injunction issued by the RTC Makati.
judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one’s right of
Meanwhile, the RTC-Makati declared as null and void possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an
the consolidated title of Planters Bank. CA affirmed ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues
the decision, which was likewise affirmed by SC. another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of
a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
Planter’s Bank appealed RTC-San Fernando’s decision
with CA which held in abeyance the resolution of its ex Given the ex-parte nature of the proceedings for a writ
parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. of possession, the RTC did not err in cancelling the
CA granted the appeal, which was affirmed by SC, previously scheduled hearing and in granting Planters
holding that the grant a writ of possession is Bank’s motion without affording notice to LZK Holdings
ministerial (GR No. 167998). or allowing it to participate.

Armed with the above ruling, Planters Bank filed Thus, SC denied the petition; CA’s order affirmed.
before the RTC-San Fernando a motion to set ex-parte
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
hearing for the issuance of a writ of possession. LZK
Holdings opposed the motion. RTC-San Fernando
issued another Order declaring the scheduled hearing
moot and academic and granting Planter Bank’s ex-
parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.
CA affirmed.

Thus, LZK Holdings appealed with the SC.

Goldenway On November 29, 1985, Goldenway Merchandising Whether Section 47 of Yes. The right of redemption being
Mechandising v Corporation executed a Real Estate Mortgage in favor R.A. No. 8791 be statutory, it must be exercised in
Equitable Bank of Equitable PCI Bank over its real properties situated validly applied in this The right of redemption being statutory, it must be the manner prescribed by the
G.R. NO. 195540 in Valenzuela City for a loan amounting to P2M. The case when the real exercised in the manner prescribed by the statute, and statute, and within the prescribed
March 13, 2013 parties expressly and categorically agreed that the estate mortgage within the prescribed time limit, to make it effective. time limit, to make it effective.
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage shall be in contract was executed
- R.A. No. 8791 accordance with Act No. 3135. Furthermore, as with other individual rights to contract Settled is the rule that the non-
in 1985 and the
- Impairment and to property, it has to give way to police power impairment clause of the
mortgage foreclosed
of obligations As Goldenway failed to settle its loan obligation, exercised for public welfare. The concept of police Constitution must yield to the
when R.A. No. 8791
of contract Equitable-PCI extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been loftier purposes targeted by the
was already in effect.
- Police power on December 13, 2000. During the public auction, the defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that Government. The right granted by
mortgaged properties were sold for P3,500,000.00 to may interfere with personal liberty or property in order this provision must submit to the
Equitable-PCI. to promote the general welfare." Its scope, ever- demands and necessities of the
expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to State's power of regulation. Such
In a letter dated March 8, 2001, Goldenway offered to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides authority to regulate businesses
redeem the foreclosed properties by tendering a enough room for an efficient and flexible response to extends to the banking industry
check in the amount of P3,500,000.00. However, conditions and circumstances thus assuming the which, as this Court has time and
Equitable told Goldenway that such redemption is no greatest benefits. again emphasized, is undeniably
Whether Section 47 of
longer possible because the certificate of sale had imbued with public interest.
R.A. No. 8791 is a No.
already been registered.
substantial impairment
On December 7, 2001, Goldenway filed a complaint of its vested right of Section 47 did not divest juridical persons of the right
for specific performance and damages against the redemption under the to redeem their foreclosed properties but only modified
Equitable, asserting that it is the one-year period of real estate mortgage the time for the exercise of such right by reducing the
redemption under Act No. 3135 (1985) which should contract. one-year period originally provided in Act No. 3135. The
apply and not the shorter redemption period provided new redemption period commences from the date of
in R.A. No. 8791 (2000). It further argued that since foreclosure sale, and expires upon registration of the
R.A. No. 8791 does not provide for its retroactive certificate of sale or three months after foreclosure,
application, courts therefore cannot retroactively whichever is earlier. There is likewise no retroactive
apply its provisions to contracts executed and application of the new redemption period because
consummated before its effectivity. Section 47 of R.A. Section 47 exempts from its operation those properties
No. 8791 should also be declared unconstitutional. In foreclosed prior to its effectivity and whose owners shall
its answer, Equitable pointed out that petitioner retain their redemption rights under Act No. 3135.
cannot claim that it was unaware of the redemption
The difference in the treatment of juridical persons and
price which is clearly provided in Section 47 of R.A.
natural persons was based on the nature of the
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
No. 8791. properties foreclosed whether these are used as
residence, for which the more liberal one-year
RTC redemption period is retained, or used for industrial or
RTC dismissed the complaint due to the fact that since commercial purposes, in which case a shorter term is
petitioner's attempt to redeem was already late, deemed necessary to reduce the period of uncertainty
there was no valid redemption made; Goldenway’s in the ownership of property and enable mortgagee-
counsel was not properly authorized by its Board of banks to dispose sooner of these acquired assets.
Directors to transact for and in its behalf.
Having ruled that the assailed Section 47 of R.A. No.
CA 8791 is constitutional, we find no reversible error
CA affirmed RTC’s decision; R.A. No. 8791 is applicable. committed by the CA in holding that petitioner can no
longer exercise the right of redemption over its
Thus, Goldenway’s petition for review on certiorari.
foreclosed properties after the certificate of sale in favor
of respondent had been registered.

SC denied the petition for lack of merit; CA’s decision

affirmed.

*if Juridical entities, right of redemption for a period of

90-days. Shorter the natural persons because of type of
property which for juridical entities is usually
commercial. So they can acquire assets immediately.

Solid Builders v During the period from September 4, 1992 to March Whether CA erred in No. Where the parties stipulated in
China Bank 27, 1996, CBC granted several loans to Solid Builders denying of the their credit agreements, mortgage
G.R. NO. 179665 which amounted to P139,999,234.34. To secure the injunctive writ despite As debtor-mortgagors, SBI and MFII do not have a right contracts and promissory notes
April 3, 2013 loans, Medina Foods Industries, Inc. (MFII) executed CBC’s illegal imposition to prevent the creditor-mortgagee CBC from foreclosing that the mortgagee is authorized
- When in CBC's favor several surety agreements and of interest, allowing it on the mortgaged properties simply on the basis of to foreclose the mortgaged
issuance of contracts of real estate mortgage over parcels of land to foreclose CBC’s alleged "usurious, exorbitant and confiscatory rate of properties in case of default by
injunctive in the Loyola Grand Villas in Quezon City and New properties. interest.” the mortgagors, the mortgagee
writ improper Cubao Central in Cainta, Rizal. has a clear right to foreclosure in
Assuming that the interest rate agreed upon by the
in foreclosure case of default, making the
In a letter dated March 20, 2000 addressed to CBC, SBI parties is usurious, the nullity of the stipulation of
proceedings. issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
requested the restructuring of its loans, a reduction of usurious interest does not affect the lender's right to
Injunction improper.
interests and penalties and the implementation of a recover the principal loan, nor affect the other terms
dacion en pago of the New Cubao Central property. thereof. Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage, the Foreclosure of mortgaged
right to foreclose the mortgage subsists, and this right property is not an irreparable
In its response letter, CBC stated that the loans had can be exercised by the creditor upon failure by the damage that will merit for the
been completely restructured effective March 1, 1999 debtor to pay the debt due. debtor-mortgagor the
in the amount of P218,540,646.00, and suggested the extraordinary provisional remedy
updating of the obligation to avoid paying interests Where there is a valid cause to foreclose on the
of preliminary injunction.
and charges. mortgages, it cannot be correctly claimed that the
irreparable damage sought to be prevented by the
Subsequently, in a letter dated September 18, 2000, application for preliminary injunction is the loss of the
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
CBC demanded SBI to settle its outstanding account mortgaged properties to auction sale. The alleged
within ten days. entitlement of SBI and MFII to the "protection of their
properties put up as collateral for the loans" they
On October 5, 2000, claiming that the interests, procured from CBC is not the kind of irreparable injury
penalties and charges imposed by CBC were contemplated by law. Foreclosure of mortgaged
iniquitous and unconscionable and to enjoin CBC from property is not an irreparable damage that will merit
initiating foreclosure proceedings, SBI and MFII filed a for the debtor-mortgagor the extraordinary provisional
Complaint "To Compel Execution of Contract and for remedy of preliminary injunction.
Performance and Damages, With Prayer for Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and Ex-Parte Temporary The respondents will not be deprived outrightly of their
Restraining Order" in the RTC of Pasig City. CBC on the property, given the right of redemption granted to
other hand, sought to explain the increase in the them under the law. Moreover, in extrajudicial
interest as contained in the promissory notes which foreclosures, mortgagors have the right to receive any
were voluntarily and willingly signed by SBI’s surplus in the selling price. Thus, if the mortgagee is
president. retaining more of the proceeds of the sale than he is
entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of
RTC the sale but will give the mortgagor a cause of action to
RTC granted the application of SBI and MFII for the recover such surplus.
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Aggrieved,
CBC filed a Petition for Certiorari with CA. A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 (OCA-Circular-No.-25-2007):
a. No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
CA injunction against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real
CA found that RTC’s issuance of a writ of preliminary estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation
injunction had no basis; thus, it granted CBC’s petition that the loan secured by the mortgage has been
and dissolved the injunctive writ. paid or is not delinquent unless the application is
verified and supported by evidence of payment.
Thus, Solid Bulders filed a petition for review on
b. No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
certiorari with the SC. It alleged that when CA granted
injunction against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real
the petition of CBC and ordered the lifting of the writ
estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation
of preliminary injunction it effectively disposed of the
that the interest on the loan is unconscionable,
main case, and enabled enabled CBC to foreclose on
unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at least
the mortgages despite the usurious, exorbitant and
twelve percent per annum interest on the principal
confiscatory interest rates.
obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure
sale, which shall be updated monthly while the case
is pending.
c. Where a writ of preliminary injunction has been
issued against a foreclosure of mortgage, the
disposition of the case shall be speedily resolved. To
this end, the court concerned shall submit to the
Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court
Administrator, quarterly reports on the progress of
the cases involving ten million pesos and above.
d. All requirements and restrictions prescribed for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
preliminary injunction, such as the posting of a bond,
which shall be equal to the amount of the
outstanding debt, and the time limitation for its
effectivity, shall apply as well to a status quo order.

Robles v In May 4, 1944, Fernando Yapcinco constituted a Whether CA erred in Yes. The registration of the sale is
Yapcinco mortgage on his property (TCT No. 20458) in favor of holding that Cruz never required only in extra-judicial
G.R. No. 169568 Jose C. Marcelo to secure the performance of his acquired title to the The Court clarifies that the failure of Apolinario Cruz to foreclosure sale because the date
October 22, obligation. In turn, Marcelo transferred his rights as subject property (sale register the certificate of sale was of no consequence in of the registration is the
2014 the mortgagee to Apolinario Cruz on October 24, not registered). this adjudication. The registration of the sale is required reckoning point for the exercise
- Judicial 1944. When Yapcinco did not pay the obligation, only in extra-judicial foreclosure sale because the date of the right of redemption.
foreclosure Apolinario Cruz brought an action for judicial of the registration is the reckoning point for the exercise
- Equity of foreclosure of the mortgage in the CFI of Tarlac, which of the right of redemption. In contrast, the registration In contrast, the registration of the
redemption rendered its decision on July 27, 1956 ordering of the sale is superfluous in judicial foreclosure because sale is superfluous in judicial
Patrocinio Y. Kelly, the administratrix of the estate of only the equity of redemption is granted to the foreclosure because only the
Yapcinco, who died during the pendency of the action, mortgagor, except in mortgages with banking equity of redemption is granted
to pay Apolinario Cruz the indebtedness secured by institutions. to the mortgagor, except in
the mortgage. mortgages with banking
It was patent error for the CA to declare that: "By institutions.
Apolinario Cruz was adjudged the highest bidder in Apolinario Cruz's failure to register the 18 March 1958
the public auction (1959). He then donated the Certificate of Absolute Sale in the Office of the Register The equity of redemption is the
property (1972) to his grandchildren, among who, was of Deeds, the period of redemption did not commence right of the defendant mortgagor
Robles. However, Apolinario Bernabe, one of the to run." to extinguish the mortgage and
donees, falsified a deed of absolute sale, whereby he retain ownership of the property
The records show that no judicial confirmation of the by paying the secured debt within
made it appear that Yapcinco had sold the property to
sale was made despite the lapse of more than 40 years the 90-day period after the
him (1991). As a consequence, the Register of Deeds
since the date of the sale. Hence, it cannot be said that judgment becomes final, or even
cancelled Yapcinco's title and issue another under his
title was fully vested in Apolinario Cruz. after the foreclosure sale but prior
name (TCT No. 243719). Another annotation was
made, purportedly releasing and cancelling the said to the confirmation of the sale.
However, the real issue to consider and resolve is who
mortgage (1992). between the parties had the better right to the
property, not whether there was a valid transfer of
On January 2, 2000, the respondents, all heirs of the
ownership to Apolinario Cruz.
Spouses Yapcinco, instituted an action against
Apolinario Bernabe and his co-vendees in the RTC for Being the heirs and successors-in-interest of the late
the annulment of TCT No. 243719. They claimed that Fernando F. Yapcinco, they could not repudiate the
although the property had been mortgaged, the foreclosure sale and its consequences, and escape such
mortgage had not been foreclosed, judicially or extra- consequences that bound and concluded their
judicially, and that the deed of absolute sale between predecessor-in-interest whose shoes they only stepped
Fernando Yapcinco and Bemabe, et aL. was void and into. Given their position on the lack of judicial
ineffectual because the Spouses Yapcinco had already confirmation of the sale in favor of Apolinario Cruz, they
been dead as of the date of the sale. RTC rendered its should have extinguished the mortgage by exercising
judgment declaring TCT No. 243719 and the deed of their equity of redemption through paying the secured
absolute sale dated August 28, 1991 null and void. The debt. They did not do so, and, instead, they sought the
TCT of Yapcinco was restored. annulment of TCT No. 243719 and caused the issuance
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
of another title in their name.
On December 17, 2002, the Robles filed an action for
the nullification of document, cancellation of title, They could not sincerely rely on the entry about the
reconveyance and damages against the respondents, release or cancellation of the mortgage in TCT No.
alleging that the respondents acted in bad faith, 20458, because such entry appeared to be unfounded in
knowing fully well that fully well that the property had the face of the lack of any showing by them that either
long been excluded from the estate of Yapcinco by they or the estate of Fernando F. Yapcinco had settled
virtue of the CFI decision. Respondents countered that the obligation.
TCT No. 20458 contained an annotation to the effect
that the property had been released from the The non-transfer of the title notwithstanding, Apolinario
mortgage. They further argue that they were not Cruz as the purchaser should not be deprived of the
bound by the foreclosure of the mortgage due to the property purchased at the foreclosure sale. With the
nonregistration of the certificate of sale. respondents having been fully aware of the mortgage,
and being legally bound by the judicial foreclosure and
RTC consequent public sale, and in view of the unquestioned
RTC ruled in favor of Robles. It ruled that the possession by Apolinario Cruz and his successors-in-
respondents cannot argue that they were not bound interest (including the petitioner) from the time of the
by the foreclosure of the mortgage due to the foreclosure sale until the present, the respondents
nonregistration of the certificate of sale. As between could not assert any better right to the property.
the parties, registration was not a requisite for the
validity of the foreclosure; and that they did not Consequently, the late Fernando F. Yapcinco and the
redeem the property until the present. respondents as his successors-in-interest were divested
of their right in the property, for they did not duly
CA exercise the equity of redemption decreed in the
CA reversed RTC’s judgment, holding that due to the decision of the trial court. With Yapcinco having
nonregistration of the certificate of sale, the period of thereby effectively ceased to be the owner of the
redemption did not commence to run. It also held property sold, the property was taken out of the mass
that Apolinario Cruz never acquired title to the of the assets of Yapcinco upon the expiration of the
property and could not have conveyed and equity of redemption.
transferred ownership over the same to his
grandchildren through the deed of donation. SC reversed and set aside CA’s decision; reinstated RTC’s
decision.
Thus, Robles appealed to SC, arguing among others,
that the non-registration of the certificate of sale did
not affect the title acquired by Apolinario Cruz as the
purchaser in the judicial foreclosure of mortgage.

MBTC v CPR From February to October 1997, respondent CPR Whether CA erred in Yes. In extrajudicial foreclosure of
Promotions Promotions obtained loans from MBTC totaling to granting the refund mortgage, where the proceeds of
G.R. No. 200567 P12,891,397.78. These loans were covered by fifteen valued at PhP The respondents were not able to timely setup their the sale are insufficient to pay the
June 22, 2015 (15) promissory notes, all signed by Sps. Reynoso as 722,602.22 plus legal claim for refund. debt, the mortgagee has the right
- Claim for Treasurer and President of CPR Promotions, interest. to recover the deficiency from the
Respondents belatedly raised their compulsory
deficiency respectively, and secured by real estate mortgages. debtor.
counterclaim.
payment
To secure the loans, the spouses Reynoso executed In demanding payment of a
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
two deeds of real estate mortgage on separate dates. It is evident that a claim for recovery of the excess in the deficiency in an extrajudicial
The first mortgage, securing the amount of PhP bid price vis-a-vis the amount due should be interposed foreclosure of mortgage, proving
6,500,000 over real estate covered by TCT No. 624835 as a compulsory counterclaim in an action for recovery that there is indeed one and what
(Feb 1996), and the amount of PhP 2,500,000 over real of a deficiency filed by the mortgagee against the its exact amount is, is naturally a
estate covered by TCT Nos. 565381, 263421, and debtor-mortgagor. precondition thereto. The same
274682 (Jul 1996). All of the mortgaged properties are goes with a claim for
registered under the spouses Reynoso's names, except It is elementary that a defending party's compulsory reimbursement of foreclosure
for TCT No. 565381, which is registered under CPR counterclaim should be interposed at the time he files expenses. In this regard, it is
Promotions. his Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar elementary that the burden to
such claim. As it appears from the records, what prove a claim rests on the party
Thereafter, on December 8, 1997, the spouses respondents initially claimed herein were moral and asserting such.
Reynoso executed a continuing surety agreement exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Then,
binding themselves solidarity with CPR Promotions to realizing, based on its computation, that it should have
pay any and all loans CPR Promotions may have sought the recovery of the excess bid price, respondents
obtained from petitioner MBTC, including those set up another counterclaim, this time in their
covered by the said PNs, but not to exceed PhP Appellant's Brief filed before the CA.
13,000,000.
Unfortunately, respondents' belated assertion proved
Upon maturity of the loans, respondents defaulted, fatal to their cause as it did not cure their failure to
prompting MBTC to file a petition for extra-judicial timely raise such claim in their Answer. Consequently,
foreclosure of the real estate mortgages, pursuant to respondents' claim for the excess, if any, is already
Act No. 3135 (March 1998). barred.

Subsequently, on May 5, 1998, the mortgaged The CA erred in ruling that the total amount due was
properties covered by TCT Nos. 624835 and 565381 PhP 12,891,397.78
were sold at a public auction sale. MBTC participated
therein and submitted the highest bid in the amount By simply adding the figures stated in the PNs as the
of PhP 10,374,000. The day after, on May 6, 1998, principal sum, it can readily be seen that the amount of
petitioner again participated and won in the public PhP 12,891,397.78 actually pertains to the aggregate
auction sale of the remaining mortgaged properties, value of the fifteen (15) PNs.
having submitted the highest bid amounting to PhP
This belies the findings of the CA that PhP 12,891,397.78
3,240,000. As a result, petitioner was issued the
is the resulting value of PhP 11,216,783.99 plus interest
corresponding Certificates of Sale on July 15 and 16,
and other charges. Consequently, the CA's conclusion
1998, covering the properties subjected to the first
that there is an excess of PhP 722,602.22, after
and second public auctions, respectively.
deducting the amount of PhP 12,891,397.78 from the
Notwithstanding the foreclosure of the mortgaged total bid price of PhP 13,614,000, is erroneous.
properties for the total amount of PhP 13,614,000,
MBTC failed to prove that there is a deficiency balance
petitioner MBTC alleged that there remained a
of PhP 2,628,520.73
deficiency balance of PhP 2,628,520.73, plus interest
and charges as stipulated and agreed upon in the PNs To support its deficiency claim, petitioner presented a
and deeds of real estate mortgages. Despite Statement of Account, which refers to the amounts due
petitioner's repeated demands, however, respondents as of May 5, 1998, the date of the first foreclosure sale.
failed to settle the alleged deficiency. Thus, petitioner
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
filed an action for collection of sum of money against Verily, there can only be a deficit when the proceeds of
respondents. the sale is not sufficient to cover (1) the costs of
foreclosure proceedings; and (2) the amount due to the
RTC creditor, inclusive of interests and penalties, if any, at
RTC ruled in favor of MBTC the time of foreclosure.
CA a. MBTC failed to prove the amount due at the time
CA reversed RTC’s decision; ordered to refund or of foreclosure
return to the respondents the amount of PhP b. MBTC failed to prove the amount of expenses
722,602.22 representing the remainder of the incurred in foreclosing the mortgaged properties
proceeds of the foreclosure sale. It ruled that the
amount sought to be collected ballooned from PhP For having failed to adequately substantiate its claims,
11,216,783.99 to PhP 12,891,397.78, wherein such We cannot sustain the finding of the trial court that
increase in amount must mean the principal and respondents are liable for the claimed deficiency,
interest and other charges. inclusive of foreclosure expenses. Neither can We
sustain the CA's finding that respondents are entitled to
the recovery of the alleged excess payment.
Thus, MTBC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 with SC, claiming that the respondents
never set up a counterclaim for refund of any amount.

Roldan v Barrios February 3, 2014, Roldan filed an action for whether the RTC As foreclosure of mortgage is a real action, it is the
- Jurisdiction foreclosure of real estate mortgage against Sps. committed grave assessed value of the property which determines the
of RTC/MTC Barrios and Matorres. abuse of discretion in court's jurisdiction. Considering that the assessed value
dismissing the of the mortgaged property is only P13,380.00, the RTC
October 13, 2008, defendants borrowed from plaintiff foreclosure cases filed correctly found that the action falls within the
the sum with it on the ground jurisdiction of the first level court. er Section 33(3) of BP
of lack of jurisdiction. 129 as amended.
assessed in the sum of P13,380.00

RTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Petitioner in her Motion argued that foreclosure of

real estate mortgage is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction lies with the
Regional Trial Court.

PLanters Bank v PDB granted 2 loans to Lubiya whether or not the Yes. Gen rule:
Lubiya lack of personal notice Personal notice to the mortgagor
- Failure to Lubiya failed in its obligation. Planters Bank of the extrajudicial In the instant case, paragraph 12 of the parties' real in extrajudicial foreclosure
personally extrajudicially foreclosed the properties, public foreclosure estate mortgage contracts state: proceedings is not necessary.
notify auction, emerged as the highest bidder. proceedings upon the
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
mortgagor mortgagor renders the All correspondence relative to this mortgage, including Exception:
Lubiya filed a complaint for nullification of the loan same null and void. demand letters, summons, subpoenas, or notification of The exception to the rule is when
agreement, foreclosure proceedings with application any judicial or extra-judicial action, shall be sent to the the parties stipulate that personal
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and Mortgagor at the above given address or at the address notice is additionally required to
injunction against Planters Bank; failure to furnish that may hereafter be given in writing by the Mortgagor be given the mortgagor. Failure to
Lubiya with notices to the Mortgagee. abide by the general rule, or its
exception, renders the foreclosure
*a demand letter notifying them is not enough. They proceedings null and void.
Planters Bank admitted that the loan agreements are
have to be personally notified. So there is no substantial
contracts of adhesion and Lubiya was indeed not
compliance in this case.
notified of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.

RTC Dismissed

CA reversed; the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings

conducted on October 6, 1998 is declared null and
void; Planters Bank failed to personally notify Lubiya of
the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings as required
in Paragraph 12 of the parties' real estate mortgage
contracts