Title
Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. vs. Spouses Locsin
Case
G.R. No. 190445
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2014
BDO failed to prove deficiency claim against Locsins after loan default and foreclosure; SC upheld CA ruling, emphasizing insufficient evidence and procedural leniency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190445)

Background and Loan Agreement

On September 29, 1995, the Locsins secured a loan of PHP 700,000 from BDO, with a promissory note that included an acceleration clause. Subsequently, on November 6, 1996, they obtained a PHP 2.5 million credit line facility, secured by a third-party mortgage. Despite the initial good payment record, the Locsins defaulted on their obligations in October 1997. BDO sent a demand letter on January 7, 1998, invoking the cross-default provision, which meant that the first loan also became due due to the default on the credit line facility.

Legal Proceedings

The Locsins filed a complaint for Specific Performance against BDO in August 1998, seeking to compel BDO to restructure their loans and halt foreclosure actions. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied their request for injunctive relief, leading BDO to proceed with extrajudicial foreclosure on September 23, 1998. BDO won the auction for the properties, with a bid exceeding the total outstanding balance on the loans by over PHP 400,000.

Deficiency Claim and Motion to Dismiss

On February 5, 1999, BDO demanded payment for a claimed deficiency of PHP 1,259,166.21. Subsequently, on November 29, 1999, BDO filed a collection action for this deficiency. The Locsins filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that BDO's claim should have been a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier case. The RTC denied this motion, which led the Locsins to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA initially ruled in favor of the Locsins, only to see the Supreme Court reverse this decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. During the RTC proceedings, BDO presented its evidence ex parte after the Locsins failed to respond. The RTC ruled in favor of BDO, awarding the total amount claimed. The Locsins then appealed to the CA, which ruled that BDO failed to prove its claims by a preponderance of evidence and dismissed the complaint.

Supreme Court Review and Findings

BDO's petition to the Supreme Court challenged the sufficiency of appellate court evidence as well as alleged procedural errors in the CA's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, noting that the deficiencies claimed by BDO were not sufficiently proven through adequate and competent evidence, emphasiz

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.