G.R. No. 210542 - Carodan vs. China Banking Corp.

Ask AI

G.R. No. 210542: Carodan vs. China Banking Corp.

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Your conversations and searches stay on your device. We do not store or track your activity on our servers. To know more about our privacy commitment see jur.ph/privacy Ask AI provides quick answers grounded in full case texts to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

Ask AI

Title Supreme Court: Carodan vs. China Banking Corp.

Case: G.R. No. 210542

Decision Date: Feb 24, 2016

Barbara Perez and Rebecca Perez-Viloria defaulted on a P2.8M loan secured by Rosalina Carodan’s property. After foreclosure, China Bank sought the deficiency. Rosalina, as an accommodation mortgagor and surety, was held jointly and severally liable, with modified interest rates.

accommodation mortgagor

surety

joint and several liability

Long 29 min

1.7x of typical case length

END