Title
Spouses Villaluz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 192602
Decision Date
Jan 18, 2017
The Spouses Villaluz authorized Agbisit via SPA to mortgage their land; she delegated authority to Milflores Cooperative, which secured a loan from Land Bank. Default led to foreclosure. SC upheld the mortgage, ruling delegation valid, future loans as consideration, and additional collateral non-extinguishing.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192602)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background
    • Paula Agbisit, chairperson of Milflores Cooperative and mother of petitioner May S. Villaluz, sought P600,000–P650,000 for her flower business expansion in 1996.
    • May and her husband Johnny Villaluz allowed Agbisit to use their land in Calinan, Davao City (TCT No. T-202276) as collateral.
  • Special Powers and Mortgage Transactions
    • On March 25, 1996, the Spouses Villaluz executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Agbisit authorizing her to negotiate and sign documents for the sale, mortgage, or disposition of the property, without any prohibition on appointing a substitute or specifying amounts.
    • On June 19, 1996, Agbisit appointed Milflores Cooperative as her attorney-in-fact to obtain a loan and execute a real estate mortgage. On June 21, 1996, the cooperative mortgaged the land to Land Bank for a P3,000,000 loan; on June 24, 1996, it also executed a Deed of Assignment of Produce/Inventory as additional collateral. Land Bank released P995,500 on June 25, 1996 and the balance of P2,000,500 on October 4, 1996.
  • Default, Foreclosure, and Lower Court Proceedings
    • Milflores Cooperative defaulted on its loan obligations. Land Bank filed for extrajudicial foreclosure; auction was set for October 2, 2003, and Land Bank was the sole bidder.
    • The Spouses Villaluz filed a complaint in the RTC to annul the foreclosure. The RTC held that, under Civil Code Article 1892, Agbisit validly appointed a substitute and dismissed the case. The CA affirmed in a September 22, 2009 Decision and denied reconsideration, prompting this petition for review.

Issues:

  • Whether Agbisit, as agent under the SPA, validly appointed Milflores Cooperative as substitute under Civil Code Article 1892.
  • Whether the real estate mortgage executed on June 21, 1996 is void for lack of consideration because the loan proceeds were released only on June 25, 1996.
  • Whether the Deed of Assignment of Produce/Inventory extinguished the SPA or the underlying loan obligation.

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.