Case Digest (G.R. No. 90169)
Facts:
In PILAR PAGSIBIGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK (G.R. No. 90169, April 7, 1993), petitioner Pilar Pagsibigan (formerly Norma Manalili) obtained on August 4, 1974 an agricultural loan of ₱4,500.00 from Planters Development Bank, secured by a mortgage on a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T–129603. After full payment, she contracted a second ₱4,500.00 loan on November 3, 1976 under a promissory note stipulating semiannual amortizations of ₱1,018.14 at 19% interest with an acceleration clause. Although petitioner made an initial delayed payment on July 6, 1977 and subsequent payments totaling ₱11,900.00, only four installments were applied to the loan while the balance was held in “accounts payable” because the account was deemed past due. On May 7, 1984, the bank initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure, claiming an outstanding balance of ₱29,554.81; the property was sold to the bank for ₱8,163.00, resulting in a deficiency of ₱21,39Case Digest (G.R. No. 90169)
Facts:
- Loan Transactions
- On August 4, 1974, petitioner obtained an agricultural loan of ₱4,500 from Planters Development Bank, secured by mortgage over TCT No. T-129603, and fully paid.
- On November 3, 1976, petitioner secured a second loan of ₱4,500 on the same property; promissory note provided semiannual amortizations of ₱1,018.14, 19% interest on unpaid amortizations, and an acceleration clause.
- Payment History and Foreclosure
- Petitioner made her first installment late (July 6, 1977) and subsequent payments totaling ₱11,900; the bank applied only four payments to the loan and lodged the balance as “accounts payable” due to default.
- On May 7, 1984, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed for an alleged balance of ₱29,554.81; the property sold for ₱8,163, leaving a claimed deficiency of ₱21,391.81.
- Procedural History
- The trial court upheld petitioner’s theory of overpayment and annulled the foreclosure sale.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering petitioner to pay the ₱21,391.81 deficiency.
Issues:
- Whether the foreclosure and auction sale were valid and justified under the circumstances.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to recover damages, including attorneys’ fees, as a result of the foreclosure and sale.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)