G.R. No. 200608 - Bacala vs. Heirs of Polino

Union Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the Court’s Decision dated 18 June 2012.
The motion raised three new arguments that had not been presented at the earliest opportunity in the case.

Union Bank contended that the 11 December 1998 Restructuring Agreement is null and void.
The basis for the nullity was that the condition precedent—that the borrower should not be in default—was not complied with.
As a consequence of the alleged nullity, the Real Estate Mortgages, which carry a different venue stipulation, would be revived.

Even assuming that the Restructuring Agreement is enforceable, Union Bank argued that it was only between Health Marketing Technologies, Inc. (HealthTech) and Union Bank.
PAGLAUM Management & Development Corp. (PAGLAUM) was stated to be party only to the Real Estate Mortgages dated 11 February 1994 and 22 April 1998, and not to the Restructuring Agreement.
Therefore, the venue for cases involving PAGLAUM should be exclusively in Cebu City as stipulated in the mortgage contracts.

Union Bank maintained that since the Complaint is an accion reivindicatoria, the assessed value of the real property specified therein determines which court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
It was observed that the Complaint does not indicate on its face the assessed value of the parcels of land.
Consequently, Union Bank argued that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was without basis.

Union Bank reiterated that the Restructuring Agreement is entirely separate and distinct from the Real Estate Mortgages.
It contended that because the Complaint relates exclusively to the real estate mortgaged properties, the venue stipulation in the mortgage contracts should apply.

The Court noted that issues raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration are deemed waived if not previously articulated at the earliest opportunity.
The new arguments raised by Union Bank require extensive factual determinations that fall within the province of the RTC, rather than the appellate court.
The Court observed that one of the arguments restated issues already resolved in its Decision, thus not warranting a fresh discussion or modification of the earlier ruling.

Whether the 11 December 1998 Restructuring Agreement is null and void due to non-compliance with its condition precedent (specifically, the requirement that “the borrower should not be in default”).
Whether, assuming the enforceability of the Restructuring Agreement, PAGLAUM’s exclusion from that agreement precludes it from benefitting from or being bound by its venue stipulations, thereby rendering the venue exclusively for cases involving PAGLAUM to be in Cebu City pursuant to the mortgage contracts.
Whether the Complaint, being an accion reivindicatoria, should have expressly shown the assessed value of the real property in order to determine proper jurisdiction, thus questioning the RTC’s assumption of jurisdiction.
Whether the assertion that the Restructuring Agreement is separate and distinct from the Real Estate Mortgages supports the application of the venue stipulated in the mortgage contracts.