Case Digest (G.R. No. 154489)
Facts:
Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) and/or Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Romulo Plaza and Wilma Plaza, G.R. No. 154489, July 25, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.One Charlie Ang obtained from petitioners a loan of P2,158,000.00 using as collateral a parcel of land owned by respondents, hence the mortgage in favor of petitioners. Ang later obtained additional loans from petitioners evidenced by promissory notes totaling P4,800,000.00. After Ang defaulted on his obligations, petitioners initiated mortgage foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged property.
Respondent-spouses offered to pay the mortgage indebtedness of P2,158,000.00 to forestall foreclosure, but petitioners refused to accept payment unless respondents assumed Ang’s other obligations. Thereafter respondents filed a civil action against petitioners and Charlie Ang for release of the real estate mortgage and damages, and prayed for a temporary restraining order and writ of injunction to stop the foreclosure. Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, alleging non-payment of the docket fees applicable to a real action since the suit, they claimed, involved title or an interest in real property.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss and denied their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed this petition for review with the Supreme Court.
While the matter was pending, on March 3, 2003 the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioners from proceeding with foreclosure; the trial court later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of that order. At pre-trial respondents sent petitioners a formal offer of payment by cashier’s check for P2,158,000.00 and asked for release of the mortgage; petitioners accepted the check only as partial payment without prejudice to the asserted remaining balance. Respondents maintained they had paid the loan in full and demanded release of the mortgage.
Petitioners continued to contend the suit is a real action (thus jurisdictional docket fees were unpaid), while respondents maintained it is a personal action to compel acceptance ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over respondents’ suit despite petitioners’ assertion of unpaid docket fees for a real action?
- Is the civil action to compel acceptance of payment and cancellation of a real estate mortgage a real action or a personal action?
- Does the mortgage secure only the original loan of P2,158,000.00 or does it also secure the subsequent loans amounting to P4,8...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)