Title
Supreme Court
Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
Case
G.R. No. 161417
Decision Date
Feb 8, 2007
Ernesto Biaco's unpaid loans led to foreclosure; Ma. Teresa sought annulment, citing improper summons and extrinsic fraud. SC ruled in her favor, annulling judgment due to lack of jurisdiction and improper service.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161417)

Factual Background

Ernesto Biaco, branch manager of PCRB, obtained multiple loans in 1998 totaling P820,000.00 under promissory notes secured by a real estate mortgage on titled land (OCT No. P-14423) signed by both spouses. When the 1998 loans—augmented by interest, penalties and charges—remained unpaid, PCRB demanded payment (September 28, 1999) and filed a judicial foreclosure complaint (February 22, 2000) before the RTC of Misamis Oriental.

Procedural History

Summons were served on Ernesto at his office; neither spouse answered, leading to default. Ex parte evidence established a balance of P1,260,304.33. The RTC rendered a decision (July 11, 2000) ordering payment within 90–100 days or public auction of the mortgaged lot. After auction brought only P150,000.00, PCRB secured a deficiency judgment (February 9, 2001) for P1,369,974.70 and levied on other properties in Ma. Teresa’s name, later sold to her daughters.

Annulment of Judgment Standards

Annulment of judgment is equitable and available only for extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction/denial of due process (Rules of Court, Rule 47, Sec. 2). Extrinsic fraud must prevent a party from presenting its case; lack of jurisdiction includes absence of due process.

Extrinsic Fraud Analysis

Petitioner claimed extrinsic fraud in her husband’s concealment of proceedings and alleged forgery of her signature on promissory notes. The Court observed that both spouses were co-defendants sharing identical interests and that any concealment by Ernesto was not attributable to PCRB. Alleged forgery constitutes intrinsic fraud (affecting trial evidence) and does not, per se, warrant annulment.

Jurisdiction and Nature of Action

Judicial foreclosure is quasi in rem: the court acquires jurisdiction over the res (the mortgaged property) rather than the person. In rem and quasi in rem actions require valid service of summons only to satisfy due process, not to vest subject-matter jurisdiction.

Service of Summons and Due Process

Rule 14 mandates personal service on resident defendants or, upon reasonable effort, substituted service at residence or business. Summons in this case were served solely on Ernesto at his office; no effort to serve Teresa personally was explained. The Sheriff’s Return neglected to justify substituted service on her. Such failure denied petitioner due process by preventing her participation in foreclosure proceedings.

Deficiency Judgment beyond the Res

By granting a deficiency judgment and ordering execution agains

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.