Title
P.C. Javier and Sons Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 129552
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2005
Petitioner defaulted on a P1.5M loan; P250K time deposit held as collateral. Bank foreclosed; SC upheld foreclosure, ruled withholding justified, and awarded damages due to bad faith.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 129552)

Facts:

  • Parties and Proceedings
    • Petitioners: P.C. Javier & Sons, Inc.; spouses Pablo C. Javier, Sr. and Rosalina F. Javier.
    • Respondents: PAIC Savings & Mortgage Bank, Inc. (formerly First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank); Acting and Deputy Sheriffs Grace Belvis, Sofronio Villarin, Pio Martinez, Nicanor Blanco; Hon. Court of Appeals.
    • RTC Makati, Branch 62, Civil Case No. 7184 – Complaint for Annulment of Mortgage and Foreclosure with Preliminary Injunction, Prohibition, and Damages filed May 7, 1984; Supplemental Complaint filed May 10, 1984.
  • Loan Transaction and Foreclosure Events
    • February 1981: Petitioners applied for a ₱1.5 million IGLF loan from First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank.
    • Loan Releases:
      • First tranche of ₱750,000 disbursed May 18, 1981.
      • Second tranche of ₱750,000 disbursed November 21, 1981, with ₱250,000 placed in time deposit as additional collateral.
    • Collateral Security: On February 15, 1983, petitioners executed a chattel mortgage over certain machinery and maintained the ₱250,000 time deposit to cure collateral deficiency.
    • Default and Foreclosure Notices: Demand letters dated November 22, 1983 and May 2, 1984; extrajudicial foreclosure scheduled for May 9, 1984.
    • Preliminary Injunctions: RTC issued status quo orders (May 9 & 19; October 22) and a December 10, 1990 order enjoining further foreclosure.
  • RTC and CA Decisions
    • RTC Findings and Disposition (July 6, 1993):
      • First Summa and PAIC are the same entity; petitioners’ obligations were due and demandable; foreclosure justified.
      • Dismissal of petitioners’ complaint; awarded to bank: unpaid principal (₱700,453.45 and ₱749,879.38), accrued interest, liquidated damages, actual damages (₱40,000), exemplary damages (₱30,000), attorney’s fees (₱50,000), costs.
    • CA Decision (January 31, 1997) and Resolution (June 20, 1997): Affirmed RTC in toto and denied motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

  • Whether a formal notice to debtors is required when a bank changes its corporate name.
  • Whether petitioners’ loan obligations were due and demandable at the time foreclosure proceedings commenced.
  • Whether the ₱250,000 time deposit constituted unlawful withholding giving rise to unjust enrichment.
  • Whether actual, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were properly awarded despite petitioners’ alleged absence of malice.

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. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.