Title
Mambulao Lumber Co. vs. Philippine National Bank
Case
G.R. No. L-22973
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1968
Mambulao Lumber Co. defaulted on a PNB loan; PNB foreclosed mortgaged assets. Court ruled foreclosure invalid due to venue breach and bulk sale, awarding damages and chattel value to plaintiff.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22973)

Facts: Disbursements and Defaults

PNB disbursed ₱27,500 on August 2, 1956 and ₱15,500 on October 19, 1956. Mambulao Lumber Company defaulted on annual amortizations due July 31, 1957 to July 31, 1961. Inspections revealed cessation of operations in late 1957 or early 1958.

Real Estate Mortgage Foreclosure Proceedings

On September 27, 1961 PNB requested the Provincial Sheriff to foreclose the land mortgage extra-judicially under Act 3135. Notice was issued for a November 21, 1961 sale in Daet, Camarines Norte. No redemption occurred within the one-year statutory period.

Chattel Mortgage Foreclosure Proceedings

Simultaneously, on November 6, 1961, PNB requested foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Deputy Sheriff Heraldo took possession November 8, 1961, issued notice, and scheduled public auction for November 21, 1961 at the mortgagor’s compound in Jose Panganiban.

Appellant’s Protests and Partial Suspension

Mambulao Lumber Company protested on November 19, 1961, contending that:

  1. Court order was required for foreclosure.
  2. Venue was contractually Manila, not provincial office.
  3. It could fully satisfy the debt within 90 days.
    PNB deferred the chattel sale to December 21, 1961 but proceeded with the real estate sale.

Payment and Demand Letters

On December 14, 1961, the mortgagor remitted ₱738.59, asserting full settlement after applying ₱56,908 from real estate proceeds. PNB replied December 16, 1961 that the balance remained ₱9,161.76 plus interest and guarding fees.

Sale of Chattels and Removal from Premises

The chattels were auctioned December 21, 1961 at ₱4,200. PNB then offered Mambulao Lumber Company redemption priority but did not redeem. In May 1962 PNB’s agents and local police forcibly removed equipment for delivery to a third-party buyer.

Trial Court Decision

The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed Mambulao Lumber Company’s complaint, held its indebtedness at ₱58,213.51, awarded PNB ₱3,582.52 (balance plus 6% interest from December 22, 1961) and expenses of suit. Appeal to the Supreme Court followed.

Issue: Computation of Indebtedness and Prohibition Against Compounding Interest

PNB compounded principal and 6% interest after each annual default, creating interest on interest contrary to Act 2655 and Civil Code Articles 1959, 2212. Absent express stipulation or judicial demand, compound interest is prohibited. The correct indebtedness as of November 21, 1961 is ₱56,485.87 plus simple interest. Trial court erred in awarding interest on accrued interest.

Issue: Expenses of Sale and Attorney’s Fees on Real Estate Foreclosure

PNB sought ₱298.54 as sheriff’s fees under old Rules of Court (Rule 130); however, Act 3135 governs extra-judicial foreclosure, entitling the officer to ₱5 per day plus actual expenses. No proof of actual expenses was offered. Reasonable allowance is ₱10 for two days’ work.

The real estate mortgage contract expressly stipulates 10% attorney’s fees on total unpaid indebtedness in “all cases” of foreclosure. Although PNB’s in-house attorney incurred minimal work, the stipulated fee is unconscionable. Under judicial control of counsel fees, a reasonable fee for extra-judicial foreclosure is fixed at ₱1,000.

Issue: Sufficiency of Real Estate Proceeds to Settle Debt

Recomputed obligation on November 21, 1961, including simple interest to that date, sheriff’s fees and ₱1,000 counsel fee, totals ₱57,495.86. Payment by real estate sale (₱56,908) plus remittance (₱738.59) equals ₱57,646.59, producing an excess payment of ₱150.73. Hence, there was no legal basis to foreclose chattels.

Issue: Venue Stipulation and Validity of Chattel Sale

Chattel mortgage contract contains a clear agreement that both judicial and extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings be filed with the Court or Sheriff of Manila. By waiving statutory venue options and stipulating Manila, the parties imposed a binding contractual venue. Foreclosure sale held in Jose Panganiban violated that stipulation.

Moreover, Act 1508 requires sale of chattels article by article, with itemized return; sale in gross of diverse equipment (over twenty items) was in breach of statutory procedure and cont

    ...continue reading

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