Title
GC Dalton Industries, Inc. vs. Equitable PCI Bank
Case
G.R. No. 171169
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2009
CII defaulted on loans secured by petitioner's mortgaged properties. Respondent foreclosed, consolidated ownership, and obtained a writ of possession. SC upheld the writ as ministerial, ruling petitioner lost interest post-redemption.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171169)

Background of the Credit Arrangement

In 1999, Equitable PCI Bank provided a credit line of P30 million to Camden Industries, Inc. (CII), enabling CII to obtain numerous loans under promissory notes and engage in purchasing trust receipts. To ensure effective debt collection, CII executed a "hold-out" agreement authorizing the bank to withdraw due amounts directly from its savings account. To secure CII's loans, GC Dalton Industries, Inc., as a third-party guarantor, mortgaged its properties in Quezon City and Malolos, Bulacan as collateral.

Foreclosure Proceedings

Despite multiple demands from Equitable PCI Bank, CII failed to satisfy its loan obligations, accumulating an unpaid balance reaching P68,149,132.40 by 2003. As a result, the bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against the Bulacan properties of GC Dalton Industries, which culminated in a public auction held on August 3, 2004. The bank emerged as the highest bidder, and a certificate of sale was issued, leading to the eventual registration of the mortgage properties under the bank's name.

Litigation and Court Orders

Following the foreclosure, CII filed an action for specific performance and damages against Equitable PCI Bank in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig on August 4, 2004. CII alleged that it had fully paid its obligations and sought to demonstrate that the foreclosure was carried out fraudulently. On March 30, 2005, the Pasig RTC ruled in favor of CII, ordering the bank to return overpayments and granting damages. Equitable PCI Bank's notice of appeal was dismissed for failing to pay docket fees, and the RTC found it had engaged in forum shopping by seeking a writ of possession in a different court.

Opposition to Writ of Possession

In January 2005, the bank filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession in the Bulacan RTC. GC Dalton Industries opposed this motion, arguing that the bank acted fraudulently and that the court had not yet resolved the issues related to CII's payments. Despite these arguments, the Bulacan RTC issued a writ of possession in December 2005, leading GC Dalton Industries to file a certiorari petition challenging the order.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Implications

The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that the writ of possession issuance is not subject to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which mandates that decisions articulate clear factual and legal bases. GC Dalton Industries subsequently elevated the case, asserting that the Bulacan RTC's order lacked sufficient legal foundation and conflicted with the earlier Pasig RTC decision.

Legal Principles Regarding Writ of Possession

The Supreme Court reiterated that the issuance of a writ of possession post-foreclosure is a ministerial action, not discretionary. The mortgagor forfeits interest in the foreclosed property once the redemption period lapses, as defined by Section 47 of the General Banking Law. Due to the r

...continue reading

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