G.R. No. 141974 - BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., VS. SPS. JANUARIO ANTONIO VELOSO AND NATIVIDAD VELOSO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly lifted the preliminary mandatory injunction it had earlier issued, denying altogether respondents petition. From this decision, respondents came to this Court via a petition for review which was, however, denied in a resolution dated January 13, 1992. The resolution affirmed, in effect, petitioners right to the possession of the subject properties. On December 16, 1992, upon motion of respondents and despite the opposition of petitioner, Branch 94 ordered the release of P1,400,000 of the consigned amount to respondents, with the balance of P100,000 to take the place of the injunction bond to answer for whatever damages petitioner might suffer because of the issuance of the preliminary injunction (previously issued and later lifted) in favor of respondents. Finally, on August 18, 1995, after almost a decade of protracted litigation, the trial court rendered a decision declaring the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties of respondents but allowed the redemption of the same at a redemption price of P2,140,000. BPI elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial courts decision, with modification: WHEREFORE, subject to the modification declaring P2,678,639.80 as the redemption price due the appellant, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. [3] Hence, the instant petition based on the following assigned errors: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ALLOWED THE RESPONDENTS TO REDEEM THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY. II ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, BUT WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT, NEVERTHELESS IT DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT WHEN IT FIXED THE REDEMPTION PRICE TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENTS TO PETITIONER AT ONLY P2,678,639.80 AND SHALL ONLY EARN 1% PER MONTH UNDER SECTION 28, RULE 39 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. The fact is that, at the time of the foreclosure sale on July 1, 1985, respondent spouses Veloso had already defaulted on their loan to petitioners predecessor-in-interest family bank. In a real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose on the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold, and to apply the proceeds to the obligation. [4] foreclosure is proper if the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation. [5] and in this case, the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure on July 1, 1985 was confirmed by both the trial court and the court of appeals. We find no reason to question it. The sole question therefore that remains to be resolved is: did respondent spouses comply with all the requirements for the redemption of the subject