Cited Laws
accordingly the auction sale of the property covered by TCT No. 473216 was scheduled by the ExOfficio Sheriff on May 9, 1984. [5] The instant complaint was filed to forestall the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of a piece of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 473216 [6] mortgaged by petitioner corporation in favor of First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank which bank was later renamed as PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank, Inc. [7] It likewise asked for the nullification of the Real Estate Mortgages it entered into with First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank. The supplemental complaint added several defendants who scheduled for public auction other real estate properties contained in the same real estate mortgages and covered by TCTs No. N-5510, No. 426872, No. 506346 and Original Certificate of Title No. 10146. [8] Several extrajudicial foreclosures of the mortgaged properties were scheduled but were temporarily restrained by the RTC notwithstanding the denial [9] of petitioners prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. In an Order [10] dated 10 December 1990, the RTC ordered respondents-sheriffs to maintain the status quo and to desist from further proceeding with the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. Among the issues raised by petitioners at the RTC are whether or not First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank and PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank, Inc. are one and the same entity, and whether or not their obligation is already due and demandable at the time respondent bank commenced to extrajudicially foreclose petitioners properties in April 1984. The RTC declared that First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank and PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank, Inc. are one and the same entity and that petitioner corporation is liable to respondent bank for the unpaid balance of its Industrial Guarantee Loan Fund (IGLF) loans. The RTC further ruled that respondent bank was justified in extrajudicially foreclosing the real estate mortgages executed by petitioner corporation in its favor because the loans were already due and demandable when it commenced foreclosure proceedings in April 1984. In its decision dated 06 July 1993, the RTC disposed of the case as follows: Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Complaint against Defendant Bank and ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendant Bank jointly and severally, the following: 1. The principal amount of P700,453.45 under P.N. No. 713 plus all the accrued interests, liquidated damages and other fees due thereon from March 18, 1983 until fully paid as provided in said PN; 2. The principal amount of P749,879.38 under P.N. No. 841 plus all the accrued interests, liquidated damages and other fees due thereon from September 1, 1982 until fully paid as provided in such PN; 3. The amount of P40,000.00 as actual damages; 4. The amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; 5. The amount of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; plus 6. Cost of suit. [11] Petitioners filed a Motion f
G.R. NO. 145441 - PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, VS. SPS. RODOLFO C. MAÑALAC, JR. AND ROSITA P. MAÑALAC.
G.R. NO. 145441 -
CasePHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW KNOWN AS BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.), THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, AND M.N. AMOR B. DAIT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.
G.R. No. 231545 -
CaseSPOUSES REMPSON SAMSON AND MILAGROS SAMSON; AND REMPSON REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. JUDGE MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO CITY, BRANCH 73; ATTY. JOSELITA MALIBAGO-SANTOS, IN HER CAPACITY AS EX OFFICIO SHERIFF, RTC OF ANTIPOLO C
G.R. No. 154355 -