Title
United Planters Sugar Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126890
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2009
UPSUMCO's loans from PNB led to foreclosure; Deed of Assignment condoned take-off loans only, upheld as valid, operational loans enforceable, payments applied until Sept. 3, 1987.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 126890)

Facts:

UNITED PLANTERS SUGAR MILLING CO., INC. (UPSUMCO) sued Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Asset Privatization Trust (APT) after an extrajudicial foreclosure and subsequent transfers of UPSUMCO funds, arising from a long-standing lender-borrower relationship. UPSUMCO obtained “take-off” loans under a Credit Agreement dated November 5, 1974, restructured in 1982 and 1984, secured by real estate and chattel mortgages, and incurred separate “operational loans” from 1984 to 1987 secured by pledges and sugar quedans and containing setoff clauses authorizing application of deposits to unpaid obligations. PNB assigned its rights over UPSUMCO to the Republic by Deed of Transfer dated February 27, 1987; the Government in turn transferred those rights to APT. An extrajudicial foreclosure sale was conducted on August 27, 1987, when APT purchased the foreclosed properties for P450 Million. On September 3, 1987 UPSUMCO executed a Deed of Assignment by which it assigned its right to redeem the foreclosed properties to APT in consideration of APT “condoning any deficiency amount it may be entitled to recover” under the November 5, 1974 Credit Agreement and the June 24 and December 10, 1982 and May 9, 1984 Restructuring Agreements. UPSUMCO filed suit on March 10, 1989 for money and damages alleging wrongful appropriation of bank deposits and sale proceeds; the Regional Trial Court entered judgment largely for UPSUMCO; the Court of Appeals 10th Division, in a Decision dated February 29, 1996, held that the Deed of Assignment condoned only the take-off loans and remanded for accounting; this Court by Decision dated November 28, 2006 initially held that both operational and take-off loans were condoned and that the Deed retroacted to August 27, 1987, but subsequent internal votes and motions led to reconsideration and, upon the Second Motions for Reconsideration, the Court en banc granted relief and reinstated the Court of Appeals Decision of February 29, 1996, ordering further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

Issues:

Did the Deed of Assignment executed on September 3, 1987 condone UPSUMCO’s obligations under both the take-off loans and the operational loans, or only under the take-off loan documents specified therein? Did the condonation effected by the Deed of Assignment retroact to the date of the foreclosure sale on August 27, 1987? Were APT and PNB entitled to apply payments from UPSUMCO’s deposit accounts on or after August 27, 1987? Was parol evidence admissible to prove that the Deed of Assignment had retroactive effect or contained additional terms outside the written instrument?

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. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.