Title
Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. De Vera
Case
G.R. No. L-18816
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1962
Defendant defaulted on a mortgage debt; after foreclosure, the bank sought and was granted recovery of the deficiency balance under Act No. 3135.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10510)

Facts of the Case

The facts, as presented by the trial court, indicate that on April 26, 1951, Tomas de Vera executed a contract entitled "Consolidation of First Real Estate Mortgage and Deed of Assignment," involving a real estate mortgage secured by two parcels of land. De Vera incurred a total indebtedness of P127,312.24 to the Philippine Bank of Commerce. The obligation matured on March 15, 1956, but despite demands for payment, the balance unpaid as of January 31, 1958, was P99,033.20. In response to De Vera’s default, the bank utilized the sheriff's services to proceed with the foreclosure of the properties, which were subsequently sold at public auction for P86,700. The bank sought a deficiency judgment from De Vera following the foreclosure, leading to the trial court's decision requiring him to pay the remaining balance along with interests and fees.

Issue Presented

The core issue to be resolved pertains to whether the trial court correctly determined that the Philippine Bank of Commerce was entitled to recover the deficiency amounting to P99,033.20 after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties under Act No. 3135.

Appellant's Argument

Tomas de Vera argued that since Act No. 3135 is silent on the recovery of any deficiency post-extrajudicial foreclosure, the bank could not assert a claim for any remaining balance. This argument hinged on the premise that the statute does not expressly grant the mortgagee the right to seek deficiency recovery.

Court's Analysis of Legislation

Upon examining Act No. 3135, the court noted the absence of any express prohibition against the recovery of deficiency balances. The court referenced Article 2131 of the new Civil Code, which states that the rights and obligations of parties in a mortgage are governed by the provisions of the Mortgage Law and Land Registration Law. It was concluded that the Mortgage Law allows for the mortgagee to claim deficiencies resulting from the sale price at auction versus the outstanding obligation.

Judicial Precedents

To support its ruling, the court cited relevant jurisprudence, emphasizing that the mortgage serves as security for the obligation rather than a means of satisfying it. Consequently, deficiencies that arise from foreclosure proceedings can be pursued, even if the creditor was the highest bidder at the auction. The court pointed out the potential absurdity of De Vera's interpreta

...continue reading

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