Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Ong
Case
G.R. No. 190755
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2010
Spouses Sy sold mortgaged land to Ong, who paid PhP 750,000 for loan assumption. Land Bank denied assumption, foreclosed, and retained payment. SC ruled unjust enrichment, ordered refund with interest and attorney's fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 81381)

Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage

Facing imminent default, the Sy spouses sold three mortgaged lots to Angelina Gloria Ong for ₱150,000 under a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. The instrument provided that upon settlement of their bank obligations, the titles would be transferred to the vendees, and the mortgage released.

Attempted Assumption of Mortgage

Alfredo Ong, Angelina’s husband, approached Land Bank Branch Head Atty. Edna Hingco to formalize the assumption. Bank requirements included partial principal payment of ₱750,000 and updated interest. Ong delivered a check for ₱750,000, obtained a receipt, and submitted financial statements. He was told the titles would be transferred, but no notice of approval or title transfer was ever issued.

Denial and Foreclosure

A credit investigation revealed Ong’s existing past-due ₱18.3 million mortgage with another bank. The Lending Center rejected his assumption application without notifying him. Meanwhile, Land Bank foreclosed the Sy spouses’ mortgage and scheduled auction, prompting Ong’s demand for return of his ₱750,000.

Recovery Action and Trial Court Decision

Ong filed an action for recovery of sum of money with damages, alleging bad faith acceptance of payment and failure to inform him of the disapproval. The RTC found the assumption contract unperfected, noted Ong received no notice of denial, and, in the interest of equity, ordered Land Bank to refund ₱750,000 with 12% p.a. interest from December 12, 1997, plus attorney’s fees of ₱50,000.

Appellate Court’s Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Ong’s payment was intended to secure his assumption of mortgage, not to discharge the Sy spouses’ arrears. It ruled Art. 1236 was inapplicable, and that Ong’s active preparations and Land Bank’s acceptance of payment effectively novated the original obligation.

Issues on Further Appeal

The Supreme Court identified issues: (1) applicability of Civil Code Art. 1236 and existence of novation, (2) whether the CA misconstrued evidence in ordering refund with interest, and (3) propriety of the attorney’s fees award.

Supreme Court on Third-Party Payment

Under Art. 1236, a creditor need not accept payment from a third party lacking interest in the obligation, unless stipulated. Ong’s payment was conditional on his becoming the recognized mortgagor, not a discharge of the Sy spouses’ debt. He acted for his own interest, and recourse could not lie against the Sy spouses.

Novation Analysis

Novation requires express consent of all parties, extinguishment of the old obligation, and birth of a new one. Substitution of debtor under Art. 1293 also demands creditor’s consent. No such consent or unequivocal intent to novate existed; Land Bank never agreed to recognize Ong as the new debtor.

Unjust Enrichment and Estoppel

By accepting Ong’s ₱750,000 and remaining silent on the disapproval, Land Bank misled him into believing the assumption was approve

...continue reading

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