Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Dee
Case
G.R. No. 182128
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2014
Dee fully paid for a lot, but PNB refused to release the title due to a mortgage. Courts ruled in Dee's favor, citing social justice and PNB's awareness of prior sale agreements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182128)

Facts of the Transactions

In July 1994 Dee entered into a contract to buy a 204-sqm lot in Binangonan, Rizal, from PEPI. In August 1996 PEPI assigned its rights over the parent tract to AFP-RSBS. On September 10, 1996 PEPI obtained a ₱205 million loan from PNB, secured by a mortgage covering, among other lots, Dee’s. Dee completed payment in July 1998, whereupon PEPI and AFP-RSBS executed a deed of sale in her favor. PNB, however, refused to release the owner’s duplicate title.

Procedural History

Dee filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for specific performance. On May 21, 2003 the HLURB ordered cancellation of the mortgage and delivery of title to Dee, or payment of alternative damages and interest, plus fees and sanctions under PD 957. Its Board affirmed with an interest modification on March 15, 2004. The Office of the President (OP) further modified the monetary award but affirmed the HLURB decision on August 4, 2004. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied PNB’s petition for review on August 13, 2007 and denied reconsideration in March 2008. PNB then filed this Rule 45 petition.

Issues for Review

  1. Whether PNB’s duly registered, HLURB-approved mortgage precluded the outright release of Dee’s title.
  2. Whether PNB could insist on PEPI’s redemption or Dee’s direct payment under the mortgage, despite full settlement of the lot.

Governing Legal Provisions

­ 1987 Constitution (post-1990 decision)
­ PD 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree), especially Section 25 on issuance of title after full payment and mandatory redemption of outstanding mortgage within six months.
­ Act 3135 on regulation of mortgages annexed to real estate.
­ Civil Code provisions on contracts (Articles 1311, 1495, 1582) and accessory character of mortgages.

Privity and Relativity of Contracts

PNB is not a party to the contract to sell between PEPI and Dee. Under Civil Code Article 1311, contractual obligations bind only the parties thereto and cannot create duties for third persons. PNB therefore cannot be ordered to assume PEPI’s or AFP-RSBS’s undertaking beyond cancellation of its own mortgage.

Mortgage as Accessory and PD 957 Section 25

A mortgage is an accessory security for a principal debt and does not alter ownership (Civil Code, accessory nature). Under PD 957 Section 25, once a lot is fully paid, the developer must deliver the title free of encumbrances and redeem any outstanding mortgage within six months. Dee’s full payment triggered that obligation, compelling PNB to cancel or release its lien.

Bank’s Duty to Respect Contract to Sell

Although PNB held a valid HLURB-cleared mortgage, it knew or should have known the property was subject to existing contracts to sell. Jurisprudence holds that banks financing development projects must investigate potential preexisting buyer rights (Luzon Dev’t Bank v. Enriquez). PNB cannot claim superior rights over a lot contractually sold and paid for under PD 957’s protective scheme.

Effect of Rehabilitation Plan and Dacion en Pago

PEPI’s RTC-approved rehabilitation plan provided for partial settlement of its debts by dacion en pago of real properties, including Dee’s lot. Under the Memorandum of Agreement, PNB accepte

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.