Case Summary (G.R. No. 179018)
Motion for Reconsideration
Union Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration following a Decision dated June 18, 2012. In this motion, Union Bank presented three arguments for the first time. The first argument posits the nullity of the Restructuring Agreement due to non-compliance with a condition precedent that the borrower should not be in default, which they argue revived the Real Estate Mortgages containing a different venue stipulation.
Interpretation of the Contractual Relationships
Union Bank's second argument asserts that, even if the Restructuring Agreement was deemed enforceable, it should only involve HealthTech and Union Bank. Paglaum would only be a party to the Real Estate Mortgages dated February 11, 1994, and April 22, 1998, thus the specified venue should be exclusively in Cebu City, as indicated in the Real Estate Mortgage contracts.
Jurisdictional Challenges
In its third argument, Union Bank contends that the nature of the Complaint as an accion reivindicatoria determines the jurisdiction based on the assessed value of the real property. Since the assessed value was not stated, Union Bank claims the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction over the Complaint. It reiterates this point, stating that the Restructuring Agreement is distinct from the Real Estate Mortgages, which would necessitate that the venue stipulation of the latter governs the proceedings concerning the mortgaged properties.
Court's Conclusion on Reconsideration
The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, highlighting that issues raised for the first time in such a motion are typically deemed waived, as they should have been articulated during the initial opportunity. The decision indicated that the factual determina
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 179018)
Case Background
- The case involves a dispute between Paglaum Management & Development Corporation, Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., and Union Bank of the Philippines, alongside other respondents including a notary public and the Register of Deeds of Cebu City and Cebu Province.
- The primary issue revolves around a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Union Bank concerning a previous decision made by the court on June 18, 2012.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Union Bank raised three new arguments for the first time in its Motion for Reconsideration:
- Argument One: The Restructuring Agreement dated December 11, 1998, is claimed to be null and void due to the non-fulfillment of a condition precedent that the borrower should not be in default. This alleged nullity purportedly revived the Real Estate Mortgages, which have a different stipulation regarding venue.
- Argument Two: Assuming the Restructuring Agreement is enforceable, Union Bank contends that it was only binding b