Title
Spouses Hojas vs. Philippine Amanah Bank
Case
G.R. No. 193453
Decision Date
Jun 5, 2013
Petitioners failed to redeem mortgaged properties within the legal period; PAB's incentive scheme did not extend redemption. SC upheld foreclosure and sale.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193453)

Case Background

The case revolves around the petitioners, Spouses Rubin and Portia Hojas, who entered into a loan agreement with the Philippine Amanah Bank for ₱450,000. The loan was secured by a mortgage on both personal and real properties owned by the petitioners. From 1981 to 1986, they paid a total of ₱486,162.13. However, the bank allegedly mismanaged their payments, leading to discrepancies that eventually culminated in an extrajudicial foreclosure initiated by PAB in 1987.

Timeline of Events

The timeline includes critical dates: on January 12, 1987, the bank issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure, setting a sale date for April 21, 1987. A public auction was subsequently held, in which PAB acquired the mortgaged property. Despite this, a letter from then OIC-President of PAB indicated that the redemption period was extended until December 31, 1988, due to an incentive scheme, leading the petitioners to assert that the public auction held on November 4, 1988, was premature.

Initial Court Proceedings

In a subsequent legal battle, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petitioners' complaint on May 27, 1996, ruling that the bank acted in good faith throughout the foreclosure process and that the petitioners failed to redeem their properties within the allotted time. The court found that the sale to Kue was legitimate and above board.

Court of Appeals Decision

The decision of the RTC was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the RTC’s ruling. The CA clarified that the December 31, 1988 date referenced in the letter did not extend the redemption period but related solely to the liberalized payment incentives offered to the petitioners. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal, confirming the RTC's findings.

Legal Principles and Arguments

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether PAB violated the principle of estoppel by conducting the public sale before the alleged extended redemption period. The petitioners contended that their reliance on the bank's statements prevented the sale. Conversely, PAB argued that the principle of estoppel does not apply, as the letter from Carpizo was not an unqualified assertion that the redemption period was extended.

Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the bank’s representation regarding the incentive scheme did not equate to an extension of the redemption period. The court reiterated that the right to redeem a property involves not just the exp

...continue reading

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