Title
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Zaragoza
Case
G.R. No. L-23493
Decision Date
Aug 23, 1978
Defendants defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage; DBP foreclosed extrajudicially, claimed deficiency, and won, with interest accruing until sale completion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23493)

Relevant Facts

Upon default on the loan, the Development Bank of the Philippines extrajudicially foreclosed on the mortgaged property on December 10, 1952. The property was sold in a public auction on June 10, 1957, for P21,035.00. After applying this amount to the outstanding balance of P28,914.36, the Zaragoza spouses were left with a deficiency of P7,779.36, which prompted the bank to file a suit for the deficiency on June 20, 1961.

Legal Issues Presented

The appeal raised two principal issues: (1) whether the mortgagee (the Development Bank) is entitled to claim a deficiency following the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and (2) whether additional interest can be charged from the notice of sale to the actual sale.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court ruled in favor of the Development Bank, holding that the appellants were jointly and severally liable for the deficiency, thus affirming the claim for the unpaid balance and attorney’s fees. This decision was based on the interpretation of laws relevant to extrajudicial foreclosure.

Mortgagee's Right to Claim Deficiency

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the mortgagee's right to claim a deficiency. Citing the case of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Tomas de Vera, it was established that the absence of explicit provisions in Republic Act No. 3135 (governing extrajudicial foreclosures) does not prohibit a mortgagee from claiming deficiencies. The Court distinguished between a mortgage as a security for a debt and the proceedings for its foreclosure, emphasizing that using the property as security does not equate to waiver of the lender's right to recover the unpaid balance.

Interest on the Outstanding Debt

On the second issue, the Supreme Court addressed the appellants’ argument about the accrual of interest during the period between the notice of sale and the actual sale. The Court clarified that any delays that occurred were instigated by requests from the Zaragoza spouses, which precluded them from arguing against the interest accruing during that time. Furthermore, the Court reiterated th

...continue reading

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