Case Digest (G.R. No. 194964-65)
Facts:
University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. Nos. 194964-65, January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court (Carpio, Chairperson, Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur).Petitioner University of Mindanao (UM) is an educational corporation whose Board of Trustees was chaired by Guillermo B. Torres in 1982; his wife Dolores P. Torres was UM’s Assistant Treasurer. Guillermo and Dolores Torres also controlled two thrift banks, First Iligan Savings & Loan Association, Inc. (FISLAI) and Davao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (DSLAI) (later merged into Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (MSLAI)). Respondent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) extended standby emergency credits and subsequent loans to those thrift banks in 1982–1984, evidenced by promissory notes signed by Torres and co-signed by Dolores or FISLAI officers.
In 1982 UM’s Vice President for Finance, Saturnino Petalcorin, executed deeds of real estate mortgage over UM’s Cagayan de Oro and Iligan properties, ostensibly to secure FISLAI’s loans. Petalcorin produced a Secretary’s Certificate and an excerpt of purported board minutes signed by UM’s Corporate Secretary, Aurora de Leon, which purportedly authorized him to mortgage specified UM properties. The mortgage annotations were entered on the relevant Transfer Certificates of Title.
FISLAI’s loans had their maturity dates extended repeatedly by Monetary Board resolutions and became due in 1990; MSLAI was liquidated in 1991. BSP sent UM a demand letter on June 18, 1999 threatening foreclosure. UM denied knowledge of the mortgages and filed two Complaints to nullify and cancel the mortgages in the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan on July 16, 1999.
Both RTCs ruled for UM (Cagayan de Oro RTC decision of November 23, 2001; Iligan RTC decision of December 7, 2001), finding lack of board authorization, that the Secretary’s Certificate was anomalous or fictitious, and that the mortgages were unenforceable. BSP appealed; the Court of Appeals (CA), after consolidating the cases, reversed in a December 17, 2009 Decision and a December 20, 2010 Resolution, holding that the notarized Secretary’s Certificate clo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did BSP’s action to foreclose the mortgages already prescribe?
- Is UM bound by the real estate mortgages executed by Saturnino Petalcorin (i.e., were the mortgages valid or ratified; was there apparent authori...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)