Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Abello
Case
G.R. No. 242570
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2019
PNB contested heirs' claim to cancel mortgage liens; SC ruled complaint lacked cause of action due to failure to prove loan maturity or demand dates.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242570)

Key Dates

  • Mortgage inscriptions: September 18, 1963; February 21, 1968; August 14 & October 8, 1973; March 18, 1974; November 4, 1975
  • Death of Manuel V. Abello Sr.: October 14, 1998
  • Complaint filed: November 21, 2008
  • RTC decision: August 26, 2014
  • CA decision: January 31, 2018
  • CA resolution denying reconsideration: September 4, 2018
  • Supreme Court decision: September 18, 2019

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari)
  • New Civil Code, Article 1169 (prescription in obligations)
  • Rules of Court, Rules 16, 132 (motions to dismiss; presentation of evidence)

Factual Background

The respondents, as heirs of Manuel V. Abello Sr. and Elenita V. Abello, owned three parcels of land in Negros Occidental covered by TCT Nos. T-127632, T-82974 and T-58311. Beginning in 1963, they executed successive real estate mortgages (REMs) in favor of PNB to secure various credit accommodations. The last REM entry (Entry No. 80024) secured a ₱227,000 loan on November 4, 1975. Manuel died in 1998; his heirs appointed Elenita as estate administrator in 2003. No foreclosure or demand was made by PNB thereafter.

RTC Ruling

The RTC granted respondents’ complaint for cancellation and discharge of mortgage liens, finding that the right to foreclose accrued on March 19, 1984 (for TCT No. T-127632) and on November 5, 1985 (for the other two titles). Because more than ten years had lapsed without action, the mortgages were held prescribed and ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel all annotated encumbrances. PNB’s counterclaim was dismissed.

CA Ruling

On certiorari, the CA denied PNB’s petition and affirmed the RTC in toto. It ruled that prescription ran from the date of default (December 31, 1985) and that PNB’s accounting notice of January 8, 2002 came too late. The CA also held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action without detailing loan terms or maturity.

Issue

Whether the cancellation orders were proper, given that respondents failed to allege and prove the dates when their mortgage loans matured or when demand was made—critical facts to determine accrual and prescription of the right to foreclose.

Supreme Court Ruling

The petition is GRANTED. Under Article 1169 of the New Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, an action to foreclose a REM does not begin to prescribe upon inscription but from the date the underlying loan becomes due or from demand where required. A cause of action must allege (and, at trial, prove) the loan

...continue reading

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