G.R. No. 150888 - TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, after hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered by this Honorable Court in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as follows: Sentencing the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P 1,000,000.00, the amount for which Fire Insurance Company Policy No. TAR 1056 was issued plus interest thereon at the legal rate computed thirty (30) days after defendants received proof of loss; Sentencing defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to plaintiff actual and compensatory damages in an amount of not less than P 275,000.00, more or less; Sentencing defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to the plaintiff, rentals which it failed to receive from the premises due to the unjustifiable delay of the defendants in the settlement of plaintiffs claim; Sentencing defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to plaintiff the interest and penalty charged to plaintiffs loan account with the Development Bank of the Philippines due to the unjustifiable delay of defendants in the settlement of plaintiffs claim; Sentencing defendant SURETY to pay to plaintiff nominal damages in an amount of not less than P 100,000.00, more or less; Sentencing defendant SURETY to pay to plaintiff exemplary damages in an amount of not less than P 100,000.00, more or less; Sentencing defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to plaintiff the amount of P 50,000.00 by way of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; Sentencing defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of suit. Plaintiff prays for such other and further reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises. [5] However, the RTC did not issue any temporary restraining order. During the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-37497, the respondent foreclosed the real estate mortgage upon the petitioners default in the payment of its obligation under the said contract. The respondent was the highest bidder at the sale at public auction, with the bid price of P 540,050.00. A certificate of sale was issued in its favor on May 30, 1990 and was annotated at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 154736. [6] The respondent consolidated its title to the property in due course. On May 28, 1991, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent in the RTC of Tarlac, for the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and damages; and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, to enjoin the defendant from selling the property. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 7432 [7] which was raffled to Branch 63, Tarlac, Tarlac. As its first cause of action, the petitioner alleged, inter alia , that the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage of the entire property, as well as the sale thereof at public auction to the respondent, was null and void because only 349 square meters of the entire property, or one-half (1/2) of the eastern portion thereof, was mortgaged to the respondent. The petitioner alleged that its failure