Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Abello
Case
G.R. No. 242570
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2019
PNB contested heirs' claim to cancel mortgage liens; SC ruled complaint lacked cause of action due to failure to prove loan maturity or demand dates.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 173089)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and procedural posture
    • Petitioner: Philippine National Bank (PNB), defendant in the trial court and appellant in the CA.
    • Respondents: Elenita V. Abello, Ma. Elena Elizabeth A. Fider, Jonathan V. Abello, Manuel V. Abello Jr., and Vincent Edward V. Abello; plaintiffs below and appellees in the CA.
  • Mortgage inscriptions on the subject titles
    • TCT No. T-127632 (Spouses Abello) – multiple real estate mortgages in favor of PNB:
      • September 18, 1963 – P5,890.00 (inscribed Aug. 9, 1968).
      • February 21, 1968 – P6,600.00 (inscribed Feb. 22, 1968).
      • August 14, 1973 – P50,000.00 (inscribed Aug. 23, 1973); amendment on Oct. 8, 1973 increasing to P94,200 (inscribed Oct. 11, 1973).
      • March 18, 1974 – credit limit accommodations increased to P75,000.
    • TCT Nos. T-82974 & T-58311 – Real Estate Mortgage of P227,000.00 executed Oct. 30, 1975, inscribed Nov. 4, 1975 (Entry 80024).
  • Lower court proceedings
    • RTC (Bacolod City, Branch 49):
      • Complaint for cancellation/discharge of mortgage (Nov. 21, 2008), on ground of prescription.
      • Decision (Aug. 26, 2014): Ordered cancellation of all mortgage annotations; held right to foreclose accrued Mar. 19, 1984 (TCT 127632) and Nov. 5, 1985 (TCT 82974, 58311).
    • CA (Cebu City):
      • Petition for certiorari (filed post-RTC decision); Motion for Reconsideration denied.
      • Decision (Jan. 31, 2018): Denied petition; affirmed RTC; held prescription ran from last payment date Dec. 31, 1985 with demand Jan. 8, 2002.
  • Present petition
    • PNB’s Rule 45 petition: Challenges CA and RTC rulings, argues complaint failed to state cause of action and respondents waived prescription defense.
    • Respondents’ comment: PNB’s own admissions suffice to determine cause of action and prescriptive period.

Issues:

  • Whether the respondents’ complaint stated a cause of action for cancellation of mortgage encumbrances.
  • Whether the action to foreclose the REMs had prescribed, considering:
    • Proper commencement of prescriptive period (maturity vs inscription).
    • Allegations and proof of maturity date or demand.
  • Whether the CA and RTC erred in ordering cancellation of the annotated encumbrances on the TCTs.

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.