Title
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Mirang
Case
G.R. No. L-29130
Decision Date
Aug 8, 1975
A borrower defaulted on a loan after his abaca plantation was destroyed by disease. The court ruled the lender could recover the deficiency post-foreclosure, rejecting claims for debt reduction due to the unforeseen loss.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172027)

Key Dates

The original loan was approved on September 7, 1950, and the mortgage was foreclosed on July 30, 1957. The initial judgment from the Court of First Instance of Davao was rendered on May 14, 1963, and modified on July 1, 1963.

Applicable Law

The case is governed by various laws, including Act No. 3135, as amended, concerning extrajudicial foreclosure, and the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines regarding mortgages. The legal principles applied are reflective of the laws effective up to the 1975 decision date.

Facts of the Case

On September 7, 1950, Mirang was granted a loan of P14,000 by the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, which later became the DBP. The loan was secured by a first mortgage on Mirang's homestead and was to be used for agricultural development. Due to the outbreak of mosaic disease affecting the plants, the DBP stopped releasing the remaining loan amounts after providing P13,000. Eventually, the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially, with the auction resulting in a sale price of only P2,010, significantly less than the outstanding debt.

Issues Raised

The main legal issues presented on appeal pertain to the right of the DBP to recover the remaining balance of the loan after the foreclosure, the potential exemption of Mirang from payment due to the destruction of his crops, and the appropriate redemption amount that Mirang must pay to reclaim his property.

Creditor's Right to Recover Deficiency

On the first issue, it was determined that despite the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage under Act 3135, the DBP retained its right to collect the deficiency balance. The court cited previous rulings indicating that the absence of explicit statutory prohibition regarding deficiency recovery means the creditor is not precluded from seeking the remainder of the debt. Thus, Mirang remains liable for the deficiency arising from the auction sale.

Exemption from Debt Due to Crop Loss

Mirang's argument for exemption based on the failure of crops to yield income due to external factors was rejected. The court emphasized that contractual obligations distinctly define the terms of repayment, and no conditions provided relief from liability based on external circumstances. The terms of Mirang's indebtedness, therefore, remained binding.

Redemption Payment

The court clarified that Mirang's right to redeem the property after foreclosure requires him to pay not on

...continue reading

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