G.R. No. 66715 - Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Leticia de la Vina-Sepe executed a real estate mortgage on March 20, 1968 in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB), San Carlos Branch, over a lot registered under TCT No. T-31913 to secure a sugar crop loan of P3,400.
Leticia de la Vina-Sepe, acting as attorney-in-fact for her brother-in-law Romeo Alcedo, executed an amended real estate mortgage to include Alcedo’s Lot No. 1626 (portion of Lot No. 1402, TCT No. 52705, Isabela Cadastre) as additional collateral for Sepe’s increased loan of P16,500.
Sepe and Alcedo verbally agreed to split fifty-fifty the loan proceeds; Alcedo later claimed nonreceipt of his share.

Alcedo wrote to PNB on May 12, 1970 revoking the Special Power of Attorney authorizing Sepe to mortgage his Lot No. 1402.
PNB Manager Jose T. Gellegani replied on May 22, 1970 to Alcedo that the lot had already been included as collateral for Sepe’s 1970-71 loan but that the Bank “shall exclude the aforementioned lot as a collateral of Leticia de la Vina-Sepe in our recommendation for her 1971-72 sugar crop loan.”
PNB on May 22, 1970 also advised Sepe in writing to replace Lot No. 1402 with another collateral of equal or higher value.

Despite PNB’s advice, Sepe obtained additional loans, increasing her indebtedness to P56,638.69, with Alcedo’s property again used as collateral.
On January 15, 1974 PNB notified Alcedo of Sepe’s unpaid balance of P56,638.69 and gave him six days to settle or face foreclosure.
Alcedo requested Sepe to pay; she did not.
While Alcedo’s suit was pending, PNB filed for extrajudicial foreclosure in the Office of the Sheriff at Pasig; on November 19, 1974 the property was sold to PNB as highest bidder and a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was issued to the Bank.

On April 17, 1974 Alcedo sued Sepe and PNB in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for collection and injunction with damages.
On October 18, 1975 Alcedo filed an amended complaint adding annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and reconveyance of Lot No. 1626, with damages.
With leave of court Alcedo later filed a second amended complaint withdrawing his claim for his one-half share of loan proceeds (P28,319.34).
PNB answered denying knowledge of the split agreement between Sepe and Alcedo, asserting that Sepe was required to put up other collaterals when given additional loans, that Alcedo’s revocation was not formalized...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether PNB validly foreclosed the real estate mortgage on Alcedo’s Lot No. 1626 despite Alcedo’s revocation of the Special Power of Attorney and PNB’s written assurance to exclude the lot as collateral for Sepe’s 1971-72 sugar crop loan.
Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel (or estoppel by deed) applied to bind PNB to its May 22, 1970 assurance to Alcedo....(Subscriber-Only)