Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    CASE No. 51 Agbada vs. Inter-Urban Developers

    Uploaded by

    Al Jay Mejos
    Petitioner-spouses obtained a P1.5M loan from Inter-Urban Developers secured by a mortgage on land and improvements. They defaulted on the loan. Inter-Urban filed for foreclosure, claiming the loan was due in 6 months at 3% monthly interest. Petitioners argued the agreed term was 5 years at legal interest rate. The trial court ruled for Inter-Urban, and the property was foreclosed. Petitioners appealed, but the RTC and CA denied relief. The Supreme Court upheld the foreclosure, finding the loan documents clearly specified the 6 month term and interest rate, so Inter-Urban could validly foreclose on the defaulted loan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CASE No. 51 Agbada vs. Inter-Urban Developers

    Uploaded by

    Al Jay Mejos
    123 views2 pages
    Petitioner-spouses obtained a P1.5M loan from Inter-Urban Developers secured by a mortgage on land and improvements. They defaulted on the loan. Inter-Urban filed for foreclosure, claiming the loan was due in 6 months at 3% monthly interest. Petitioners argued the agreed term was 5 years at legal interest rate. The trial court ruled for Inter-Urban, and the property was foreclosed. Petitioners appealed, but the RTC and CA denied relief. The Supreme Court upheld the foreclosure, finding the loan documents clearly specified the 6 month term and interest rate, so Inter-Urban could validly foreclose on the defaulted loan.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner-spouses obtained a P1.5M loan from Inter-Urban Developers secured by a mortgage on land and improvements. They defaulted on the loan. Inter-Urban filed for foreclosure, claiming the loan was due in 6 months at 3% monthly interest. Petitioners argued the agreed term was 5 years at legal interest rate. The trial court ruled for Inter-Urban, and the property was foreclosed. Petitioners appealed, but the RTC and CA denied relief. The Supreme Court upheld the foreclosure, finding the loan documents clearly specified the 6 month term and interest rate, so Inter-Urban could validly foreclose on the defaulted loan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views2 pages

    CASE No. 51 Agbada vs. Inter-Urban Developers

    Uploaded by

    Al Jay Mejos
    Petitioner-spouses obtained a P1.5M loan from Inter-Urban Developers secured by a mortgage on land and improvements. They defaulted on the loan. Inter-Urban filed for foreclosure, claiming the loan was due in 6 months at 3% monthly interest. Petitioners argued the agreed term was 5 years at legal interest rate. The trial court ruled for Inter-Urban, and the property was foreclosed. Petitioners appealed, but the RTC and CA denied relief. The Supreme Court upheld the foreclosure, finding the loan documents clearly specified the 6 month term and interest rate, so Inter-Urban could validly foreclose on the defaulted loan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE No. 51 Agbada vs.

    Inter-Urban Developers

    TOPIC:

    Foreclosure vs. Pactum Commissorium – Act 3135, Rule 68 RROC

    FACTS:

    Petitioner-spouses obtained P1.5M loan from defendant Inter-Urban with term of 6 months and 3%
    monthly interest, secured by a real estate mortgage on a parcel of land and the improvements thereon.
    Upon default, defendant filed complaint for foreclosure of mortgage which the petitioners opposed
    claiming that the loan is not yet due because when they obtained the loan from Ong Tiam, President of
    Inter-Urban, the term agreed upon is 5 years with rate at legal interest, and further alleging that those
    terms appearing in the documents are simulated and for formality purposes only.

    Trial court ruled in favor of defendant in which the petitioner-spouses did not appeal, thus property was
    foreclosed with defendant as the highest bidder. Writ of possession was secured by defendant. After the
    foreclosure, the petitioners filed Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Preliminary Injunction which
    was denied by RTC and CA.

    Issue:

    Whether the foreclosure by the defendant is valid.

    Ruling:

    Yes. The material issues in a civil action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage are the existence of the
    debt and its demandability. The first one was not refuted by the petitioner-spouses. The second lies on
    whether the term is 6 months or 5 years. When proceedings had been ongoing in the trial court for
    more than 4 years, petitioner-spouses plainly assailed the finding of the trial court vis-a-vis the
    appraised value of the foreclosed property, without more, thus strongly implying their acquiescence to
    the due and demandable loan, and in fact attempted to pay the loan completely and recover the
    foreclosed lot and improvements.

    (Optional only)

    The defense of failure of the writing to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, obtains
    only where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of
    the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument, thus necessitating the
    reception of relevant extrinsic evidence of the contractual provision in dispute to enable the court to
    make a proper interpretation of the instrument. However, in this case, the loan and mortgage deed is
    clear and without ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in specifying the maturity of the loan exactly after
    6 months from date of execution thereof at interest rate of 3% per month.

    You might also like