G.R. No. 185979 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, VS. VICENTE JOSE CAMPA, JR., MIRIAM M. CAMPA, MARIA ANTONIA C. ORTIGAS, MARIA TERESA C. AREVALO, MARIA NIEVES C. ALVAREZ, MARIAN M. CAMPA AND BALBINO JOSE CAMPA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that - 1. Immediately upon the filing of this Complaint, this Honorable Court conduct an ex-parte hearing on plaintiffs application for the issuance of a TRO effective for seventy-two (72) hours prohibiting and enjoining BSP from consolidating in itself titles to plaintiff and the other Third-Party Mortgagor's foreclosed properties; 2. After due notice and summary hearing, this honourable court extend the 72-hour TRO to its full term of twenty (20) days; 3. Before the lapse of the 20-day TRO, and upon due notice and evidentiary hearing, this honorable court issue a writ of preliminary injunction - 3.1 Prohibiting and enjoining BSP from consolidating in itself titles to plaintiff and the other Third-Party Mortgagor's foreclosed properties; and 3.2. Suspending the redemption period for the properties foreclosed by BSP, registered in the names of plaintiff Alifto, et al., while the merits of this complaint are being heard, conditioned upon the plaintiffs posting of a bond in an amount as may be determined by this court to answer for damages that defendant may suffer as a result of the preliminary injunction should it be finally decided that plaintiff was not entitled thereto. 4. After trial of the issues, this court render judgment - 4.1 Making the preliminary injunction permanent; 4.2 Declaring that the Third-Party Real Estate Mortgages had been released/discharged/extinguished by novation resulting from the subsequent dacion en pago arrangement between BSP and Bank Wise; 4.3 Compelling BSP to honor its commitment to allow BankWise to settle the segregate obligation by way of dacion en pago , and to accept so much of the titles/properties that have been submitted to it in payment of said entire segregated obligation, in substitution of the Third-Party Mortgages. 4.4 Compelling BankWise to make good its promise to return the titles that they borrowed from the Third-Party Mortgagors. 5. Finding defendants to pay plaintiff, as follows: 5.1 PHP1,000,000.00 , as moral damages; 5.2 PHP1,000,000.00 , as attorney's fees; 5.3 PHP200,000.00 , as exemplary damages, and, 5.4 Costs of suit. Plaintiff likewise respectfully prays for such other or further or reliefs as may be deemed just or equitable. [23] The suit clearly is not for the benefit of the corporation for a judgment in favor of the complainant would mean recovery of his personal property. There is no actual or threatened injury alleged to have been done to the corporation due to the foreclosure of the properties belonging to third-party mortgagors. A reading of the Interim Rules further demonstrates that the complaint could not be considered a derivative suit. First, Aliño failed to exhaust all remedies available to him as a stockholder of VR Holdings. Alifio made the following allegations in his Complaint which we find lacking in particulars: 2.19 Plaintiff called the attention of VR Holdings, as 50.44 % owner of BankWise and defendant BankWise itself, to hono