Title
Fortune Motors , Inc. vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.
Case
G.R. No. 115068
Decision Date
Nov 28, 1996
Fortune Motors defaulted on loans, leading to Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure. SC upheld foreclosure validity, ruling proper notice, publication, and posting complied with legal requirements.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 115068)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Loan Agreements and Consolidation
    • Fortune Motors (Phils.) Inc. obtained four separate loans from Metrobank:
      • ₱20,000,000.00 on March 31, 1982
      • ₱8,000,000.00 on April 30, 1983
      • ₱2,500,000.00 on June 8, 1983
      • ₱3,000,000.00 on August 16, 1983
    • On January 6, 1984, Metrobank consolidated the ₱8M and ₱3M loans into one promissory note of ₱12,650,000.00 (including accrued interest of ₱1,650,000.00).
  • Mortgage and Default
    • To secure the total obligation of ₱34,150,000.00, Fortune mortgaged certain real estate in favor of Metrobank.
    • Fortune defaulted on repayment upon maturity, prompting Metrobank to initiate extrajudicial foreclosure on May 25, 1984.
  • Extrajudicial Foreclosure Proceedings
    • Notice of Extrajudicial Sale
      • Sent by registered mail to Fortune’s address; registry return card received by Metrobank.
      • Posted for 20 days (May 20, 1984 onward) at three public places in Makati: the Sheriff’s Office, Assessor’s Office, and Register of Deeds.
    • Publication
      • Notices published in The New Record on June 2, 9, and 16, 1984; affidavit of publication by publisher Teddy F. Borres dated June 19, 1984.
    • Auction and Redemption
      • Public auction sale yielded Metrobank as highest bidder at ₱47,899,264.91.
      • Fortune failed to redeem within one-year period; titles consolidated in Metrobank’s name.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • Trial Court (RTC Makati, Branch 150)
      • Fortune filed suit for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure covering eight TCTs.
      • On December 27, 1991, RTC rendered judgment annulling the foreclosure.
    • Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
      • Metrobank appealed; CA reversed on April 26, 1994.
      • Fortune’s petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied on May 30, 1994; reconsideration followed.

Issues:

  • Whether the publication of the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure in The New Record was valid under law.
  • Whether Fortune duly received the mailed notices of foreclosure and sale.
  • Whether there were irregularities in bidding, posting, publication, or sale procedure.
  • Whether the CA decision improperly rested on presumption rather than evidence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.