Title
Supreme Court
Agoo Rice Mill Corp. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 173036
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2012
ARMC failed to repay loans secured by mortgaged properties; LBP foreclosed under P.D. 385. Court upheld foreclosure, denied injunction, deemed interest rates reasonable.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10231)

Background Facts

From October 1993 to October 1996, ARMC secured loans from LBP, backed by real and chattel mortgages on its properties and machinery. Upon the loans' due dates, ARMC faced financial difficulties exacerbated by external factors such as increased rice imports and adverse weather conditions affecting production. Despite partial payments, ARMC struggled to meet its obligations and sought extensions and restructuring of its loans with LBP.

Application for Extrajudicial Foreclosure

In July 1998, LBP filed for extrajudicial foreclosure on ARMC’s properties due to ARMC's failure to comply with payment demands. They indicated that the total unpaid obligation exceeded P23 million, prompting ARMC to file a complaint for injunction two days prior to the foreclosure auction.

Complaint for Injunction

ARMC's complaint asserted that the forthcoming foreclosure was premature and unlawfully executed while negotiations for loan restructuring were ongoing. ARMC alleged it had fulfilled its obligations on one of the previous loans and argued the foreclosure petition contained inaccuracies and contractual violations.

Temporary Restraining Order and Hearing

A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was initially granted, halting foreclosure proceedings. The court subsequently extended the TRO, but negotiations failed to yield resolution, leading to a hearing on a preliminary injunction.

RTC Ruling

On August 5, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled against ARMC, determining LBP had acted within its rights to foreclose due to ARMC’s default. The RTC noted that no binding restructuring agreement existed because ARMC failed to meet collateral requirements. It cited Presidential Decree No. 385, mandating government financial institutions to enforce foreclosure under certain conditions.

CA Ruling

ARMC's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was similarly denied. The CA upheld the RTC's findings, emphasizing that LBP had not committed to restructuring ARMC’s loans. Additionally, the court found that ARMC had no established right to prevent the foreclosure.

The Court's Ruling on Injunctive Relief

The Supreme Court addressed whether ARMC had a clear right warranting injunctive relief. It affirmed that ARMC failed to demonstrate such a right, as no agreement on loan restructuring exist

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.