Title
Spouses Chua vs. United Coconut Planters Bank
Case
G.R. No. 215999
Decision Date
Dec 17, 2018
Petitioners contested UCPB’s foreclosure, alleging improper application of proceeds to Jose Go’s liabilities. SC ruled Revere REM void, UCPB acted in bad faith, and petitioners’ obligations were fully paid, entitling them to excess proceeds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 44291)

Factual Background

The petitioners entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Gotesco Properties for a subdivision development, leading to the execution of several documents such as deeds of absolute sale transferring ownership of 32 parcels of land to Revere Realty. Simultaneously, they entered a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with UCPB to consolidate their debt of approximately P204.6 million, pledging 30 parcels of land as collateral. Disputes arose over the execution of mortgages and the legitimacy of certain transactions, particularly concerning a separate Real Estate Mortgage (REM) involving properties owned by Revere Realty but ostensibly intended to secure obligations of both the petitioners and Jose Go.

Court Rulings and Decisions

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners by nullifying the REM executed by Revere Realty and Go, asserting that they lacked the authority to mortgage properties owned by the petitioners. The RTC ordered the reconveyance of properties and determined the obligations of UCPB. Appeals from UCPB and related parties led to reversals in the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the validity of the REM and maintained that the obligations of the petitioners were not extinguished.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the petitioners, declaring that the obligations were fully paid and the REM executed by Revere was indeed null and void, as the properties were held in trust for the petitioners. The ruling emphasized that UCPB acted in bad faith by failing to properly apply the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of the properties to the debts of the petitioners before applying it to the obligations of Jose Go.

Key Legal Principles

The decision hinges on principles of property law, particularly regarding mortgages, trusts, and agency. The court determined that a mortgage is ancillary to a principal obligation, requiring a valid principal loan to exist for the mortgage to be enforceable. Additionally, it established that express consent from the property owners (the petitioners) was necessary for any transaction affecting their ownership rights, which was not secured in this instance.

...continue reading

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