Title
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Mirang
Case
G.R. No. L-29130
Decision Date
Aug 8, 1975
A bank seeks to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower whose property was foreclosed and sold, despite the borrower's plea for exemption due to the destruction of his abaca plants, leading to a court ruling in favor of the bank but with dissenting opinions expressing concerns about fairness and suggesting alternative solutions.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29130)

Facts:

  • Dionisio Mirang obtained a loan of P14,000.00 from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now Development Bank of the Philippines) on September 7, 1950, for his 18.5-hectare abaca plantation.
  • The loan was secured by a first mortgage on his homestead and was intended for purchasing work animals and farm implements (P1,000), constructing a farmhouse and laborers' quarters (P1,500), and developing and maintaining the abaca land (P11,500).
  • The bank released P13,000.00 but stopped further releases after the plantation was attacked by mosaic disease, which destroyed the abaca plants.
  • Mirang failed to pay the yearly amortizations, leading to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage under Act 3135.
  • The property was sold at public auction on July 30, 1957, with the bank as the highest bidder for P2,010.00. By then, Mirang's indebtedness had reached P19,714.35.
  • Mirang did not redeem the property within one year, prompting the bank to file a complaint to recover the balance of the indebtedness.
  • The Court of First Instance of Davao ruled in favor of the bank, ordering Mirang to pay P16,013.13 plus 6% interest per annum from July 30, 1957, attorney's fees of P500.00, and the costs of the suit.
  • Mirang appealed the decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Development Bank of the Philippines has the right to recover the balance of the indebtedness after the mortgaged property was sold under extrajudicial foreclosure.
  2. The Court ruled that Mirang is not exempted from paying the balance of the loan despite the destruction of the abaca plants by mosaic disease.
  3. ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. The Court held that the absence of a provision in Act 3135 barring the recovery of a deficiency does not imply that the creditor loses the right to recover the unpaid balance. The Mortgage Law and the Rules of Court allow for the recovery of any unpaid balance on the principal obligation after foreclosure. The Court cited the case of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Tomas de Vera, which established that the mortgagee has the right to claim the deficiency resulting from the sale of the mor...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.